Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that such searches are valid if, at the time of the search, the authorities \"reasonably believe\" the third party possesses common authority over the premises.In reaching its decision, the Court noted that \"reasonableness,\" not consent, is the touchstone of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; the Constitution only prohibits \"unreasonable\" searches and seizures. Therefore, the constitutional validity of a police determination of consent to enter is not judged by whether the police were correct in their assessment, but by whether, based on the facts available at the moment, it was reasonable to conclude that the consenting party had authority over the premises."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Illinois_v._Rodriguez abstract "Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that such searches are valid if, at the time of the search, the authorities \"reasonably believe\" the third party possesses common authority over the premises.In reaching its decision, the Court noted that \"reasonableness,\" not consent, is the touchstone of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; the Constitution only prohibits \"unreasonable\" searches and seizures. Therefore, the constitutional validity of a police determination of consent to enter is not judged by whether the police were correct in their assessment, but by whether, based on the facts available at the moment, it was reasonable to conclude that the consenting party had authority over the premises.".