Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 (1958), [1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited criminal suspects' constitutional right to counsel before trial, refusing to overturn a subsequent conviction without a showing that the refusal of counsel had a coercive or prejudicial effect.
That court ruled that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits police to conduct a full exploratory search of a cell phone (even if the search is conducted later and at a different location) whenever the phone is found near the suspect at the time of arrest. [10] Riley then appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody. The majority held that suspects ...
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1] This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner. [2] [3]
Police officers cannot detain someone on the street just because that person acts furtively to avoid contact with them, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. [1] In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway ...
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's decision and was later upheld by the California Supreme Court. [2] In 2014, the United States Supreme Court overruled that position in Riley v. California and held that without a warrant, police may not search the digital information on a cellphone that has been seized incident to arrest. [3
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a California woman who said her rights were violated after federal officials refused to allow her husband into the country, in part, because of the way ...