Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Police are not required to conduct a search in a way that gives the individual an opportunity to revoke consent, as determined in United States v. Rich , where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that "officials must conduct all searches in plain view of the suspect, and in a manner slowly enough that he may ...
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant consent rule" established in United
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) - search valid if police reasonably believe consent given by owner; Florida v. Bostick (1991) - not "free to leave" but "free to decline" on bus; Florida v. Jimeno (1991) - can request officer to limit scope of search; Ohio v. Robinette (1996) - do not have to inform motorist is free to go; United States v.
During such searches, the DEA Task Force Groups approach people at airports, ask for consent to speak with the person and, if the Special Agents or Task Force Officers think it warranted, ask for ...
Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, most police searches require a search warrant based on probable cause. [9] The absence of valid consent or an exception to the warrant requirement (whether for purposes of effecting a search or an arrest) normally requires a warrant for police entry in an individual's home. [9]
The reasonable expectation of privacy is crucial in distinguishing a legitimate, reasonable police search and seizure from an unreasonable one. A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the Government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy". [3] In Katz v.
The city, its police department and federal officials reached a court-enforceable agreement known as a consent decree, the Justice Department announced this week. The agreement aims to prevent ...
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the applicability of Fourth Amendment protections to searches and seizures that occur on buses, as well as the function of consent during searches by law enforcement. [1]