News & Analysis as of

Fourth Amendment Supreme Court of the United States

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that warrants may only be granted upon findings of probable cause. The Fourth... more +
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that warrants may only be granted upon findings of probable cause. The Fourth Amendment applies to the States via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Important areas of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence flow from questions surrounding the definitions of "search" and "seizure," the applicability of the Amendment to so-called "stop and frisk" situations, the level of control that must be exerted by law enforcement before an individual is deemed "seized," and the "exclusionary rule," just to name a few.    less -
Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - October 4, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in 15 cases: Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Solutions, No. 23-971: This case concerns the intersection between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, which...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Not the Day We Are Waiting For - SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

With a significant mass of cases left to decide and only a few weeks to issue the opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court has reduced the backlog by four yesterday. None of them, however, resolves the future of Chevron deference or...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - June 20, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions today: Moore v. United States, No. 22-800: This case concerns the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (“MRT”) included in the 2017 Tax Cuts and...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court:  Innocent Owners of Forfeited Personal Property Must Wait

Ballard Spahr LLP on

On May 9, in Culley et al. v. Marshall, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require a preliminary hearing in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property for claimants to raise the “innocent...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - June 8, 2022

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147: In this case, Robert Boule sued a border patrol agent arguing the agent violated his Fourth and First Amendment rights by using excessive force during a search and retaliating against Boule when...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Court Refuses to Extend Bivens to Excessive Force and Retaliation Claims: SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

Notwithstanding the fact that, as we approach the end of the term, the Court still had 30 cases to decide as of Wednesday morning, June 8, the day’s count has only been reduced by one. So, expect a flurry of cases with the...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Egbert v. Boule

On June 8, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147, declining to recognize a cause of action for damages against a federal border agent for either a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim or a First...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Thompson v. Clark

On April 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thompson v. Clark, No. 20-659, holding that a plaintiff who brings a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution must show that the underlying...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - April 4, 2022

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued one decision: Thompson v. Clark, No. 20-659: In 2014, police received a report that petitioner Larry Thompson was sexually abusing his newborn baby. When police...more

Baker Donelson

A Victory for Qualified Immunity. A Trend to Continue?

Baker Donelson on

Events from recent years related to alleged police misconduct raised major questions surrounding the protections afforded by qualified immunity to police officers in excessive force claims. Two recent Supreme Court decisions...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

Significant Criminal Cases from the Supreme Court’s 2020-2021 Term

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

The Supreme Court recently concluded the 2020-2021 term with its decision in the controversial voting rights case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. Although Brnovich and other high-profile cases like Fulton v....more

Law Matters

On Caniglia v Strom and Community Caretaking: Q&A with Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy of Skadden

Law Matters on

In a 9-0 opinion by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that the “community caretaking” exception does not extend to the home, narrowing police powers to search homes without a warrant and repudiating the First Circuit’s...more

Rumberger | Kirk

Supreme Court Rejects Community Caretaking Doctrine to Authorize Warrantless Search of Home to Seize Firearms

Rumberger | Kirk on

The 21st Century law enforcement officer serves a variety of public service functions, only some of which involve the enforcement of criminal laws. From some of those non-criminal public service roles, the courts have...more

Poyner Spruill LLP

Torres v. Madrid (New Excessive Force Opinion from SCOTUS)

Poyner Spruill LLP on

In a 5-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Torres v. Madrid that a woman who was shot while fleeing from police officers was “seized,” even though she remained at large. ...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Drone Operators Beware….Michigan Appellate Court Opines On Privacy

Fox Rothschild LLP on

In a new decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that when it comes to privacy and aerial surveillance, a landowner has a greatly enhanced expectation of privacy when unmanned aircraft are involved. The decision,...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - March 25, 2021

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist., No. 19-368; Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, No. 19-369: In two separate products liability actions, petitioner Ford Motor Company challenged the Montana and Minnesota State courts’...more

BakerHostetler

2020 Supreme Court Update

BakerHostetler on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s October term started earlier this month, and promises to be an unprecedented session. How is the Court responding to the pandemic and adapting to a virtual environment? Which cases should you be...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Hernandez et al. v. Mesa

On February 25, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Hernandez et al. v. Mesa, No. 17-1678, declining to extend a judicially created damages remedy for a constitutional violation by a federal employee, a U.S. Border Patrol agent...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - December 18, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the following cases: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267; St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348: Whether the First Amendment’s...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Mitchell v. Wisconsin

On June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210, holding that the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement almost always permits a blood test without a...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - June 27, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions on June 27, 2019: Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966: The Secretary of Commerce announced in a March 2018 memo that he was reinstating a question...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - April 1, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions this morning: Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184: Petitioner Michael Biestek, a former construction laborer, applied for social security disability benefits...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - January 14, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On Friday, January 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the following eight cases: Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18-525: Whether Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement, 42...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Carpenter May Reveal A Recipe For Defense In High Tech Criminal And Regulatory Cases

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again expanded the Fourth Amendment protections afforded to certain modern digital communications. And in doing so, the unusual five-justice majority led by Chief Justice Roberts has suggested...more

Alston & Bird

U.S. Supreme Court Builds On Individuals’ Privacy Rights

Alston & Bird on

In a landmark Fourth Amendment case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that digital is different. A cross-practice team from our National Security & Digital Crimes and Cybersecurity Preparedness & Response teams parse the narrow...more

129 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide