4

It probably does, up to a point. Roe v. Wade asserts a right to privacy, discussed in §VIII. Granting that there is no explicit enumeration of a right to privacy in the Constitution, its implicit presence is discerned via a long series of constitutional rulings of a diverse nature. It is not clear what is the extent of This right of privacy, whether it be ...


3

In part, we don't know because there are currently no rules that address certain outcomes, so it will depend on who is on the Supreme Court when the issue is raised. A warrantless search will not be legal beyond current doctrines regarding crime in progress and imminent danger, even if it involves time travel. So you will need a warrant, and you will need ...


3

In case there is no way of knowing, thus no way to sue, would this seem like a loophole that practically abolishes the 4th amendment ? The 4th amendment only means that the officer needs a probable cause/reasonable suspicion to detain you. It absolutely does not mean that he has to tell you what that is. In fact, not telling you what the probable cause is ...


3

The Fifth Amendment only protects you against being compelled to testify by the government. So unless Wonder Woman is acting on behalf of the government, information obtained through the use of the Golden Lasso is admissible. The question about whether she has been "deputized," is not the right one. Rather, the question is whether she is a "state actor." ...


2

Maybe and Yes respectively The relevant legal principle is if the photographs constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the 4th amendment. If they violate the expectation of privacy they are a 'search' and must therefore be reasonable; if they don't they are not a 'search' and their reasonableness is irrelevant. In Florida v Riley 488 U.S. 445 (1989) the ...


2

You're referring to the Exclusionary Rule, which bars the government's use of evidence it obtained in a bad-faith violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. It is typically only applied when a defendant objects to the use of the evidence, so it would not prevent a defendant from using that evidence if he wanted to. The government would not have ...


1

Yes, assuming that the original warrant doesn't include such accounts. Suppose the warrant includes the premise and everything in it. That includes his computer, and the files, with or without passwords. It does not include his office, his safe deposit box, or his off-site files on Drape-box, with or without passwords. In other words, it's about the scope of ...


1

That is not easy. It depends on exactly what the officer did or did not do, and on what the person detained did. Did the officer provide any reason for the detention? was that reason plausible? Was there any circumstance which might have made a detention plausible? (I recall reading a court opinion that certain conduct is sufficiently unusual that it ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible