Sentences with phrase «seizure under the warrant»

However the flaw in this argument is that there is no power in the criminal courts (whether on a review of the section 8 warrant or on an application under section 59) to quash a warrant or to make any declaration as to the legality of the search or seizure under the warrant.

Not exact matches

Davis sought Supreme Court review after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May that the failure to obtain a warrant did not violate Davis» right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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 consultation document also looks at electronic applications for warrants, the need for greater consistency in time limits for the execution of warrants, the use of reasonable force in their execution, the seizure of material not explicitly referred to in a warrant, and legal professional privilege relating to material found under any search warrant.

With respect to the section 8 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the care and attention the police pay to the limits of their authority and to the drafting of informations to obtain search warrants before intruding into the privacy of the subjects under investigation has significantly increased in the past years.

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.

His claim was compromised by consent and the warrants were quashed, the seizures under them declared unlawful and the property ordered to be returned to the claimant, however this was done subject to a police application for authority to retain the documents under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

Under Pt 8 investigators may seek production orders, search and seizure warrants, customer information orders, account monitoring and disclosure orders.

On 4 December 2013 US magistrate judge James Francis granted US authorities a warrant, under the US» Stored Communications Act, which authorised the search and seizure of information «associated with a specified web - based e-mail account that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or operated by Microsoft Corporation».

And warrants for the seizure of bodily substances for DNA analysis may be granted by provincial court judges under s. 487.05 (1) of the Criminal Code.