What did Horton v California do?

What did Horton v California do?

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view.

What happened in Coolidge v New Hampshire?

In a decision in which a number of justices chose to concur in part and dissent in part, the Court held that the searches and seizures of Coolidge’s property were unconstitutional.

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.

What is evanescent evidence?

The evanescent evidence doctrine grants authority to police who have probable cause but not a search warrant to collect evidence that is otherwise likely to disappear or be destroyed.

What was the ruling in Terry v Ohio?

8–1 decision In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry.

What was the ruling in United States v Chadwick?

Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception.

What did the court say about Michigan vs long?

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed Long’s conviction for possession of marijuana on the basis that the search of his vehicle was impermissible under the federal and state constitutions.

What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential “tree” is tainted, so is its “fruit.” The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v.