Difference between revisions of "Help:Contents"
(Languages <a href=" http://www.amiaconference.net/percocet-30-buy-online.pdf#clatter ">cheapest place to fill percocet</a> The District Court agreed with the brothers, and the government appealed the) |
(When do you want me to start? <a href=" http://imbolc.ie/buy-dipotassium-glycyrrhizate.pdf ">buy duraclon</a> âÂÂItâÂÂs very disappointing,â said Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Adv) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Languages <a href=" http://www.amiaconference.net/percocet-30-buy-online.pdf#clatter ">cheapest place to fill percocet</a> The District Court agreed with the brothers, and the government appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third District. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that the actions of the police were "highly disconcerting" under a physical intrusion theory of the Fourth Amendment. The judges dismissed the government's arguments that the search was legal because the police had probable cause even if they didn't seek a warrant, saying "generally speaking, a warrantless search is | + | Languages <a href=" http://www.amiaconference.net/percocet-30-buy-online.pdf#clatter ">cheapest place to fill percocet</a> The District Court agreed with the brothers, and the government appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third District. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that the actions of the police were "highly disconcerting" under a physical intrusion theory of the Fourth Amendment. The judges dismissed the government's arguments that the search was legal because the police had probable cause even if they didn't seek a warrant, saying "generally speaking, a warrantless search is notÃÂ rendered reasonable merely because probable cause existedÃÂ that would have justified the issuance of a warrant." |
Revision as of 06:53, 26 May 2015
Languages <a href=" http://www.amiaconference.net/percocet-30-buy-online.pdf#clatter ">cheapest place to fill percocet</a> The District Court agreed with the brothers, and the government appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third District. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that the actions of the police were "highly disconcerting" under a physical intrusion theory of the Fourth Amendment. The judges dismissed the government's arguments that the search was legal because the police had probable cause even if they didn't seek a warrant, saying "generally speaking, a warrantless search is notÃÂ rendered reasonable merely because probable cause existedÃÂ that would have justified the issuance of a warrant."
