Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Emergency aid doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing warrantless entry to premises if exigent circumstances make it necessary. [8] A number of exceptions are classified under the general heading of criminal enforcement: where evidence of a suspected crime is in danger of being lost; where the police officers are in hot pursuit; where there is a probability that a suspect ...
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.
But an officer may make a warrantless entry when “the exigencies of the situation” create a compelling law enforcement need. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). The question presented here is whether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect always—or more legally put, categorically—qualifies as an exigent circumstance.
The court had previously said that police in “hot pursuit” of a suspect believed to have committed a more serious crime, a felony, can enter a home without a warrant.
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is or is about to be seriously ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Procedural: Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin: Holding; Absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless nighttime entry into the home of an individual to arrest him for a civil, nonjailable traffic offense is prohibited by the special protection afforded the individual in his home by the Fourth Amendment.
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that, based on the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not conduct a warrantless search of a third party's home in an attempt to apprehend the subject of an arrest warrant, absent consent or exigent circumstances.
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), is a landmark search and seizure case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.In a 7–2 decision, the court held that a person staying as a guest in the house of another had a legal expectation of privacy, and that a warrantless entry into that house to arrest the person tainted the arrest and the individual's subsequent statements.