Six months after the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled the state Court of Appeals and held that a police officer’s mistaken beliefs about the law could be a reasonable basis for a stop, the appeals court pushed back.
Police needed a warrant to search a FedEx package suspected of containing marijuana, the California Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a suppression order.
Police could not conduct a Terry stop based on suspicious behavior observed nearly a week earlier, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a drug conviction.
A warrant permitting a search of records and information on a criminal defendant’s computer was not so overly broad that it ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
High school coaches had no liability for violating a constitutional right of privacy based on an allegation that they disclosed a student’s sexual orientation to her mother, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a denial of qualified immunity.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing police to collect DNA samples from arrestees before they are convicted, or even arraigned, could lead to a flood of legal challenges across the country as courts in states with differing laws on warrantless pre-conviction DNA sampling — or no laws at all — consider just how much constitutional leeway law enforcement officials have.
WASHINGTON – Likening the practice to fingerprinting, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Maryland law authorizing the warrantless collection of DNA samples from suspects accused of certain serious crimes.
Federal prosecutors could introduce cellphone and Global Positioning System (GPS) evidence linking a defendant to a bank robbery, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a conviction.
A suspect’s decision to remain silent behind a locked bedroom door did not amount to an objection that would override his wife’s consent to a warrantless search of the premises by police, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a suppression order.