On February 21, 2017, an application was filed before Justice Glen Poelman, a case management judge under s. 551.1 of the Code, asserting that the general warrant was invalid because
it authorized a search and seizure that was overly broad and in breach of ss.
Not exact matches
The affidavit for
search and seizure warrant that
authorized federal DEA agents to enter the Menominee Indian Reservation revealed a lack of DEA knowledge of hemp cultivation methods, incorrect information regarding means for identifying industrial hemp,
and furthermore violated the Menominee Tribe's sovereign rights per their status as Indian Country.
The 4th Amendment requires that
searches and seizures be reasonable in the manner that they are carried out even if the
search or
seizure is itself
authorized by law.
A corporation is but an association of individuals with a distinct name
and legal entity,
and, in organizing itself as a collective body, it waives no appropriate constitutional immunities,
and, although it can not refuse to produce its books
and papers, it is entitled to immunity under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable
searches and seizures,
and, where an examination of its books is not
authorized by an act of Congress, a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of practically all of its books
and papers is as indefensible as a
search warrant would be if couched in similar terms.
The lawyer is required to do this in the knowledge that any solicitor - client confidences contained in these records are not adequately protected against
searches and seizures authorized by the scheme.
Edited to add: Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, which follows the rule that unauthorized drivers don't have standing to challenge a
search /
seizure even with the
authorized driver's permission to drive the car; unauthorized drivers of rental cars don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they lack a possessory interest in the car
and / or they're violating the rental agreement.
The Court held that there was no breach of Cole's section 8 rights against unlawful
search and seizure under the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms because the technician stumbled upon the images while accessing the laptop for these implicitly
authorized purposes.
It concluded that the
search and seizure of the laptop
and all of its contents by the principal
and school board was both
authorized by law
and was reasonable.
It sought a declaration that the sections of the Income Tax Act which
authorized the order were of no force or effect because they unjustifiably infringe the protections of life, liberty
and security of the person
and protections against unreasonable
search or
seizure contained in the Charter.