Ad
related to: california search warrant manual
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.
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4.
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]
The search warrant explicitly stated that without Cardenas' consent, a body cavity search could be conducted only after X-ray confirmation of a suspected foreign object within her.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body.
Federal search warrants may be prepared on Form AO 93, Search and Seizure Warrant. [13] Although the laws are broadly similar, each state has its own laws and rules of procedure governing the issuance of warrants. Search warrants are normally available to the public. On the other hand, they may be sealed if they contain sensitive information. [14]
Deputy U.S. Marshals during a knock-and-announce procedure. Knock-and-announce, in United States law criminal procedure, is an ancient common law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment, [1] which requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a search.
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.