Difference between revisions of "Minnesota v. Carter"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: In ''Minnesota v. Carter'', 525 U.S. 83 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect against the viewing by an outside police officer, through a dr...) |
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Minnesota v. Carter'', 525 U.S. 83 (1998), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that the [[Fourth Amendment]] did not protect against the viewing by an outside police officer, through a drawn window blind, of the defendants' bagging cocaine in an apartment. | + | In '''''Minnesota v. Carter''''', 525 U.S. 83 (1998), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that the [[Fourth Amendment]] did not protect against the viewing by an outside police officer, through a drawn window blind, of the defendants' bagging cocaine in an apartment. |
The Supreme Court of [[Minnesota]] had held that the officer's viewing was a search that violated respondents' [[Fourth Amendment]] rights. Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], writing for a 6-3 Court, found that no violation had occurred and reversed the decision of the state court. | The Supreme Court of [[Minnesota]] had held that the officer's viewing was a search that violated respondents' [[Fourth Amendment]] rights. Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], writing for a 6-3 Court, found that no violation had occurred and reversed the decision of the state court. | ||
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
[[category:Fourth Amendment]] | [[category:Fourth Amendment]] | ||
Revision as of 18:45, May 4, 2008
In Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect against the viewing by an outside police officer, through a drawn window blind, of the defendants' bagging cocaine in an apartment.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota had held that the officer's viewing was a search that violated respondents' Fourth Amendment rights. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Court, found that no violation had occurred and reversed the decision of the state court.