Fourth Amendment search and seizure; Unlawful detention; Motion to suppress; Neighboring property to property subject to search warrant; Plain view doctrine inapplicable
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.2 Introduction If last year's new developments in search and seizure law were one of anticipation, then this year's should be known as one of implementation.3 The implementation and impact of last year's decisions within the military justice system were pronounced within the service courts of criminal appeals4 and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF)5 this term.6 In other words, the collective military courts were simply applying the rudder, and alig...
Postville is one of the latest in a series of immigration raids that have intensified in the past three years. These raids are leading our nation to a moral, legal and humanitarian crisis. ICE's heavy handed enforcement against undocumented workers in the wake of failed immigration reform is shameful. Under current immigration laws, no more than 10,000 of the backlogged visas for unskilled workers and 66,000 temporary visas for seasonal workers are available each year. In contrast, an estimated 2,000 persons cross the Southwest border into the U.S. daily and an estimated 12 million undocumented persons live in the U.S. This unprecedented criminalization of undocumented workers also has not been accompanied by a comparable infusion of constitutional guarantees in the handling of these ca...
...Thus, the protection of stricter Fourth Amendment search and seizure, Fifth Amendment due ...
Introduction Search and seizure law's history is a struggle for clarity in an atmosphere of ambiguity.3 The U.S. Supreme Court further clarified Fourth Amendment law in the October 2005 term4 by addressing exceptions to the warrant requirement,5 probable cause,6 and the application of the exclusionary rule.7 The 2006 Term of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF)8 addressed two cases anticipated to be significant in the search and seizure concepts surrounding computers and other electronic media.9 Therefore, Part I of this article discusses two of the five search and seizure cases decided by the Supreme Court, and Part II discusses the two CAAF cases which analyze the threshold expectation of privacy requirement within the context of computers and other digital media.
When the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case City of Ontario v. Quon, the legal world braced for the justices to rule on whether employees have a privacy interest in the messages they send on employer-issued mobile devices. But the Court sidestepped that issue, ruling instead that an employer's acquisition of employees' text message transcripts to determine whether the messages were personal or business-related in nature was not an unreasonable search. Therefore, the Court ruled, no Fourth Amendment search and seizure violation occurred.
Fourth Amendment; search and seizure; search incident to arrest.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Lindora Inc | Door Katrina | Lockton Insurance Brokers Inc. | Abu Zakariya | Justice Ginsburg | niort hotel | ley mujer maltratada | Beaubery | responsabilidad civil por daños ambientales | Suspension
