Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Excluding The Exclusionary Rule: Extending The Rationale Of Hudson V. Michigan To Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches, Jeffiy R. Gittins
Excluding The Exclusionary Rule: Extending The Rationale Of Hudson V. Michigan To Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches, Jeffiy R. Gittins
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall
Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall
University of Richmond Law Review
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …