Ad
related to: illegal search evidence california court ruleslegal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
- Legal Cases
Quickly Find On-Point Cases that
Address Your Specific Legal Issue.
- Start Your Free Trial
Access a Free Trial of Westlaw
Precision to Research Faster.
- Legal Cases
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
The Court extended that holding in this case, addressing the standard for deciding what are the fruits of an illegal search in state criminal trials. Clark's opinion addressed “the specific question as to whether Mapp requires the exclusion of evidence in this case which the California District Court of Appeal has held to be lawfully seized ...
California, [7] the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent, which had caused ambiguity. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] The case involved the plain view seizure of weapons related to a robbery, even though the warrant was signed by a judge who had specifically denied permission to seize weapons as part ...
The evidence from the hotel room was used to convict him of the robbery at trial. Stoner unsuccessfully challenged the admissibility of the evidence at trial and on appeal, since police had lacked a warrant and relied on the clerk's permission. The appeals court held that the search was incident to arrest and thus permissible.
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.
One of its provisions, the Truth-in-Evidence Act, eliminated the exclusionary rule for unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The Court rejected Greenwood's claim that the amendment violated the Due Process Clause. It held that so long as the police conduct did not violate federal law, "California could permissibly conclude that the benefits of ...