7

Yes and No See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967): What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. The glass has clearly been "knowingly exposed" ...


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 ...


4

Hard to Tell The individual consented to a search by letting the officer come in, and consent searches are held to be reasonable. Katz was an unconsented invasion of privacy (picking up sound through the glass in a telelphone booth). The glass has been "knowingly exposed", and the glass is in plain sight (Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128. "...


3

How far can one go to defend him/herself from an unreasonable search and seizures, in the same sense of one defending him/herself from an unlawful arrest? Not very far. Basically all you can do is try to talk the officer out of it. He thinks he sees evidence in sight... If the police officer reasonably believes that there is evidence of a crime in ...


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." ...


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 ...


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 ...


2

No. The requirement for air passengers to undergo a security inspection is imposed at 49 CFR 1540.107(a). This imposes the security screening as a condition of entering the sterile area of the airport and of boarding an aircraft: (a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or ...


2

First, welcome to LSE, Josh. And congratulations on such a nice first question. The answer to your question is No. Inviting an officer into your house to talk about a robbery does not give the officer the right to search your house. Talking and searching involve two different amendments, and you must waive your rights under each explicitly. However, under ...


1

The difference is stylistic only. There are not two different substantive probate cause standards in the U.S. law of constitutional criminal procedure. "Probable cause to believe" is simply old fashioned wording. I will try to locate some authority to this effect if I can.


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 ...


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