What is the significance of Riley v California?
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.
When did Riley v California happen?
June 25, 2014
Riley v. California/Dates decided
What did the court rule in California v Greenwood?
Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
What is the constitutional issue in the Birchfield vs North Dakota case?
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of The State of North Dakota stating that warrantless breath tests are protected under the search incident to arrest warrant exception of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and require minimal physical intrusion.
What is the Belton rule?
| New York v. Belton | |
|---|---|
| Prior | Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York |
| Holding | |
| When a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. | |
| Court membership |
What is meant by the term exclusionary rule?
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
What was the outcome of Gideon v Wainwright?
Decision: In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges.
What rights are protected by the 4th Amendment?
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Who won California vs ciraolo?
Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that warrantless aerial observation of a person’s backyard did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Who won Kyllo v US?
United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held in a 5–4 decision which crossed ideological lines that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person’s home was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
What is the schmerber test?
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark 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.
What is the issue in Knowles v Iowa?
Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from further searching a vehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written a citation for the offense.