Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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.
California law states police can only search your phone under ... a suspect’s phone without a warrant and obtaining evidence admitted in court. ... being gathered from an illegal search, the ...
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 exception in some instances allows for the introduction of evidence gathered during illegal searches, so long as a judge approved a search warrant, even if the warrant shouldn’t have been ...
United States (1984), [189] the Court ruled that evidence illegally found without a search warrant is admissible if the evidence is later found and legally seized based on information independent of the illegal search. [190] In Arizona v. Evans (1995) [191] and Herring v.
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.
Other examples of evidence inadmissible under this doctrine include: Evidence seized during a search, where the probable cause for the search was illegally obtained evidence [25] A confession made by the defendant, prompted by the admission of illegally obtained evidence against him [26] Evidence derived from information gained in illegal ...