This is a Complaint pleading for use in litigation of the title matter. Adapt this form to comply with your facts and circumstances, and with your specific state law. Not recommended for use by non-attorneys.
4th Amendment Us Constitution With Case Laws In Phoenix
Category:
State:
Multi-State
City:
Phoenix
Control #:
US-000280
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement These include: Exigent circumstances. Plain view. Search incident to arrest.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...
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.
This Fourth Amendment activity is based on the landmark Supreme Court case Brendlin v. California, dealing with search and seizure during a traffic stop.
So, yes, in California, when it comes to suppression of evidence in search and seizure, criminal defendants are limited to what the Fourth Amendment provides.
Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief investigatory stops, searches incident to a valid arrest, and seizures of items in plain view.
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.
Brendlin v. California | United States Courts.
To claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence, courts have long required that the claimant must prove that they were the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing.