When.com Web Search

  1. Ad

    related to: what is mandatory arrest policy in california supreme court case search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Searches incident to a lawful arrest - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_incident_to_a...

    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.

  3. Riley v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California

    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.

  4. People v. Diaz - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Diaz

    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]

  5. Schmerber v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmerber_v._California

    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.

  6. Samson v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_v._California

    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.

  7. People can't be detained just for trying to avoid police ...

    www.aol.com/news/people-cant-detained-just...

    Police officers cannot detain someone on the street just because that person acts furtively to avoid contact with them, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

  8. Navarette v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarette_v._California

    Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. [1] In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway ...

  9. Gilbert v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_v._California

    Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), was an important decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was argued February 15–16, 1967, and decided June 12, 1967. The case involved Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights, the taking of handwriting exemplars, in-court identifications and warrantless searches.