Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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.
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]
California law states police can only search your phone under these conditions.
Getting a search warrant begins in a police department and ends with a specific, restricted list of items allowed to be seized on a specific property.
People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (Cal. January 3, 2011) was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. [1]
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]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us