翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ United States v. Bestfoods ・ United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind ・ United States v. Binion ・ United States v. Booker ・ United States v. Bormes ・ United States v. Brechner ・ United States v. Brewster ・ United States v. Brignoni-Ponce ・ United States v. Burton ・ United States v. Butler ・ United States v. Camacho ・ United States v. Carmack ・ United States v. Carolene Products Co. ・ United States v. Carroll Towing Co. ・ United States v. Causby ・ United States v. Chadwick ・ United States v. Choi ・ United States v. City of Portland ・ United States v. Clark ・ United States v. Classic ・ United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. ・ United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. ・ United States v. Colgate & Co. ・ United States v. Comstock ・ United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations ・ United States v. Constantine ・ United States v. Continental Can Co. ・ United States v. Cook ・ United States v. Correll ・ United States v. Cors Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク United States v. Chadwick ： ウィキペディア英語版 United States v. Chadwick ''United States v. Chadwick'', 433 U.S. 1 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. The court reasoned that while luggage is movable like an automobile, it does not have the lesser expectation of privacy associated with an automobile. Chadwick was later abrogated on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), in which the Supreme Court overruled Chadwick's holding with respect to containers within a vehicle, holding that police may search a container within a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the container itself holds contraband or evidence. Chadwick’s holding that a search incident to arrest must not be too remote in time or place is still good law. ==Applications== *''People v. Diaz'' 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (2011) 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Chadwick」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.