-
579 U.S. 438 Supreme Court June 23, 2016 Nos. 14–1468; 14–1470; 14–1507.
search warrant.
The Court's justification for the booking exception, which allows police to obtain fingerprints and DNA without a warrant while booking an arrestee at the police station, is the administrative need for identification.
The Court's justification for the inventory search exception, which allows police to inventory the items in the arrestee's personal possession and car, is the need to "protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police
-
573 U.S. 373 Supreme Court June 25, 2014 No. 13-132
These two cases raise a common question: whether the police may, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
The officer impounded Riley's car, pursuant to department policy, and another officer conducted an inventory search of the car.
Under established law, the police may seize and examine the phone bill and the snapshots in the wallet without obtaining a warrant, but under the Court's holding today, the information stored in the cell phone is out.
-
563 U.S. 452 Supreme Court May 16, 2011 No. 09-1272
It is well established that “exigent circumstances,” including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant.
Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant”). This Court has identified several exigencies that may justify a warrantless search of a home. See Brigham City, 547 U.
that a magistrate’s warrant for search may be dispensed with”).
-
571 U.S. 292 Supreme Court February 25, 2014 No. 12-7822
II A The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that a warrant may not be issued *1132 without probable cause, but "the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must
An owner may want the police to search even where they lack probable cause, and if a warrant were always required, this could not be done.
When a warrantless search is justified, requiring the police to obtain a warrant may "unjustifiably interfer[e] with legitimate law enforcement strategies." King , 563 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 1860 .
-
564 U.S. 229 Supreme Court June 16, 2011 No. 09-11328
Leon itself, for example, held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in “objectively reasonable reliance” on a warrant later held invalid. 468 U. S., at 922.
If the police in this case had reasonably relied on a warrant in conducting their search, see Leon, supra, or on an errone ous warrant record in a government database, Herring, supra, the exclusionary rule would not apply.
S. ___ , this Court held that a police search of an automobile without a war rant violates the Fourth Amendment if the police have pre viously removed the automobile’s occupants and placed them securely in a squad car.
-
568 U.S. 186 Supreme Court February 19, 2013 No. 11-770
A search may be of a person, a thing, or a place. So too a seizure may be of a person, a thing, or even a place. A search or a seizure may occur singly or in combination, and in differing sequence.
Detective Sneider drove the unmarked car back, while Detective Gor-becki used Bailey’s set of keys to drive Bailey’s car back to the search scene.
The police action permitted here—the .search of a residence—has a spatial dimension, and so a spatial or geographical boundary can be used to determine the area within which both the search and detention incident to that search may
-
575 U.S. 348 Supreme Court April 21, 2015 No. 13-9972
Struble is a K–9 officer with the Valley Police Department in Ne braska, and his dog Floyd was in his patrol car that night.
He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground, among others, that Struble had pro longed the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff.
Thus, it remains true that police may ask questions aimed at uncovering other criminal conduct and may order occupants out of their car during a valid stop. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 333 (2009); Maryland v.
-
565 U.S. 400 Supreme Court January 23, 2012 No. 10-1259
In this case, the Gov- ernment installed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on respondent Antoine Jones’ Jeep without a valid warrant and without Jones’ consent, then used that device to monitor the Jeep’s movements
If the police attach a GPS device to a car and use the device to follow the car for even a brief time, under the Court’s theory, the Fourth Amendment applies.
JONES ALITO, J., concurring in judgment lance is long enough to constitute a Fourth Amendment search, the police may always seek a warrant.11 We also need not consider whether prolonged GPS monitoring in the context of investigations
-
577 U.S. 7 Supreme Court November 9, 2015 No. 14-1143
On the night of March 23, 2010, Sergeant Randy Baker of the Tulia, Texas Police Department followed Israel Leija, Jr., to a drive-in restaurant, with a warrant for his arrest. 773 F.3d 712 , 715-716 (C.A.5 2014).
Without answering that question, the Court explained, the conclusion that Anderson's search was objectively unreasonable did not "follow immediately" from-and thus was not clearly established by-the principle that warrantless searches
These cases shed little light on whether the far greater danger of a speeding fugitive threatening to kill police officers waiting in his path could warrant deadly force.
-
565 U.S. 535 Supreme Court February 22, 2012 No. 10-704
Petitioner police officers conducted a search of respond- ents’ home pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate.
investigated on this warrant, or which may depict ev- idence of criminal activity.
The Court also hints that a police officer’s otherwise unreasonable conduct may be excused by the approval of a magistrate, or more disturbingly, another police officer. Ante, at 16–18.
-
569 U.S. 1 Supreme Court March 26, 2013 No. 11-564
not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is "no more than any private citizen might do."
physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
officers cannot use it to examine a home without a warrant or exigent circumstance.
-
569 U.S. 141 Supreme Court April 17, 2013 No. 11-1425
As is relevant here, we have also recognized that in some circumstances law enforcement officers may conduct a search without a warrant to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. See Cupp v.
to attend to a car accident, does not mean a warrant is required.
In doing so, it turns the exigency inquiry into a question about the amount of evidentiary destruction police must permit before they may act without a warrant.
-
584 U.S. 586 Supreme Court May 29, 2018 No. 16-1027
When these justifications are present, officers may search an automobile without a warrant so long as they have probable cause.
This case presents the question whether the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter the curtilage of a home in order to search a vehicle parked therein.
Nearly a century ago, this Court held that officers with probable cause may search a motor vehicle without obtaining a warrant. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153 , 155–156 (1925).
-
563 U.S. 731 Supreme Court May 31, 2011 No. 10-98
It is unclear whether those facts alone might allow police to obtain a material witness warrant on the ground that it “may become im practicable” to secure the person’s presence by subpoena. Ibid.
S. 531, 538 (1985) (“Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion . . .”); New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 342, n. 8 (1985) (“the search of T. L.
S. 692, 699, n. 9 (1981) (“police executing a search warrant at a tavern could not . . . frisk a patron unless the officers had individualized suspicion that the patron might be armed or dangerous”).
-
571 U.S. 3 Supreme Court November 4, 2013 No. 12-1217
It did so despite the fact that federal and state courts nationwide are sharply divided on the question whether an officer with probable cause to arrest a suspect for a misdemeanor may enter a home without a warrant while in hot pursuit
may enter without a warrant, regardless of whether the offense for which the suspect is being arrested is a misdemeanor"), and State v.
Acting on that tip, the officers went to Welsh's home without a warrant, entered without consent, and arrested him for driving while intoxicated-a nonjailable traffic offense under state law.
-
126 A.3d 850 Supreme Court of New Jersey September 24, 2015 No. A-9-14
and there conduct the search without first obtaining a warrant.”
New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 462 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2036 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 580 (1971) (plurality), a case involving the search *430 of a parked car on private property without a valid warrant.
For example, a car may be stopped for speeding, and the officer may smell an overpowering odor of marijuana and then arrest, handcuff, and place the driver in the back of a patrol car.
-
835 F.3d 736 Seventh Circuit August 30, 2016 No. 15-2833
Similarly, in Pace , after we determined that an Illinois forfeiture statute permitted warrantless seizures of vehicles, we joined several other circuits in holding that under the Fourth Amendment, police “may seize a car without a
warrant pursuant to a forfeiture statute if they have probable cause to believe that the car is subject to forfeiture.”
The ordinance at issue there, unlike the ordinance at issue in our case, allowed the search to occur without probable cause.
-
574 U.S. 54 Supreme Court December 15, 2014 No. 13-604
Under this standard, a search or seizure may be permissible even though the justification for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake.
Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Es- cort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car.
Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized from the car, contending that the stop and search had violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
-
585 U.S. 296 Supreme Court June 22, 2018 No. 16-402
Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may—in the Government’s view—call upon the results of that surveillance without regard to the con- straints
S. 798 , 817–818 (1982) (ripping open car upholstery); Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dept., 844 F. 3d 556, 572 (CA6 2016) (shooting and killing two pet dogs); Lawmaster v.
Legislatures cannot pass laws declaring your house or papers to be your property except to the extent the police wish to search them without cause.
-
568 U.S. 237 Supreme Court February 19, 2013 No. 11-817
II A police officer has probable cause to conduct a search when “the facts available to [him] would ‘warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief’ ” that contraband or evidence of a crime is present. Texas v.
Errors may abound in such records. If a dog on patrol fails to alert to a car containing drugs, the mistake usually will go undetected because the officer will not initiate a search.
Field data thus may not capture a dog’s false negatives. Conversely (and more relevant here), if the dog alerts to a car in which the officer finds no narcotics, the dog may not have made a mistake at all.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.