0
According to John Yoo's letter the Supreme Court allows warrantless searches or seizures only if?
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Government interests are greater than the need to keep certain information private
Raven Altenwerth
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What duty does the government have that allows it to conduct warranties searches and seizures?
To protect its citizens from terrorist attacks
According to John Yoo's letter the Supreme Court allows warrentless searches or seizures only if?
Government interests are greater than the need to keep certain information private.
List and explain four situations in which the US Supreme Court has ruled that a warrantless search is justified?
Warrantless searches can be performed when consent is given or there are exigent circumstances. An exigent circumstance is if the police feel that someone's safety is at risk or criminal activity is ongoing. Two other conditions are the plain view doctrine and incidental searches.
What does Carroll vr US allow?
United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been cited as widening the scope of warrantless search.
What 1978 Supreme Court case related to the impropriety of the warrantless collection of physical evidence at a homicide scene?
the 1978 supreme court case that related to the impropriety of the warrantless collection of physical evidence at a homicide scene is ?
What supreme Court case protects overnight guest in the home against warrantless search?
Miranda v. Arizona
A warrantless search not incident to an arrest may be justified under the Supreme Court's exigent-circumstances doctrine?
true
The US Supreme Court has declined to extend the exclusionary rule to searches conducted by whom?
The Supreme Court created an exception to the exclusionary rule for searches conducted by school administrators.
What can police do during a Terry stop?
The Supreme Court held in Terry v. Ohio (1968) that police officers, based on their street experience but not necessarily probable cause, may stop suspects and pat them down to look for weapons. The Court expanded this category of warrantless searches and seizures in Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), ruling that a police officer may seize contraband, not just weapons, during a "pat down." However, such contraband must be obvious through the defendant's clothing. Source: The Words We Live By...Linda Monk...2003
The supreme court has adopted the exclusionary rule to protect citizens from?
illegal searches
In rochin v california why supreme court ruled that the suspect could not be tried?
In the Rochin v. California case, the supreme court ruled that the suspect could not be tried because some of the searches were shocking to the conscience and that the fruits of such searches should be excluded from the courts.
Is it true that The US Supreme Court has a long history of expressing a strong preference for the use of a search warrant?
Yes, it is true that the US Supreme Court has consistently expressed a strong preference for the use of search warrants. This preference is based on the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court has held that a warrant is generally required for searches and seizures, except for certain exceptions recognized by the Court.
