CALIFORNIA | LOCAL <\/p>\n
November 7, 2011 | By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times <\/p>\n
Sunset Strip bookie Charlie Katz suspected the feds had bugged his apartment, so he would amble over to a pay phone outside where Carney's hot dog joint now stands to call in his bets to Boston and Miami. It was 1965, a time when phone booths had four glass walls and a folding door, allowing Katz to seal himself off from eavesdroppers. Or so he thought. FBI agents planted a recording device at the booth and taped his dealings, leading to his conviction on eight illegal wagering charges. <\/p>\n
OPINION <\/p>\n
April 9, 2009 | Lawrence Rosenthal, Lawrence Rosenthal is a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in Orange. <\/p>\n
John Yoo is a professor of law at UC Berkeley. This semester, he is my colleague -- as a visiting professor -- at Chapman University's School of Law. Yoo is also under investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general for his role in producing a number of controversial memorandums during his service in the department during the Bush administration. The memos include one stating that the president may authorize the torture of suspected terrorists. I am a former federal prosecutor. <\/p>\n
NATIONAL <\/p>\n
October 21, 2003 | David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court said Monday that it would consider creating a new right to remain silent -- this time for people who are stopped, but not arrested, by police. A stubborn Nevada man who was standing along a roadway when an officer approached him will get a hearing to decide a basic question that the high court has never squarely answered: Does the Constitution give a person the right to refuse to identify himself to the police? <\/p>\n
NEWS <\/p>\n
March 29, 2000 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER <\/p>\n
In a rare rebuff to police, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that an officer may not stop and frisk a pedestrian based only on an anonymous caller's tip. Instead, the justices reaffirmed the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and stressed that officers need specific, reliable evidence of some wrongdoing before they stop a person on the street. The surprising 9-0 ruling threw out gun-wielding charges against a black youth in Miami who was frisked and arrested at a bus stop. <\/p>\n
NEWS <\/p>\n
December 2, 1998 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court narrowed the privacy protection of the 4th Amendment Tuesday, ruling that short-term visitors to a home are not shielded from police surveillance. The 6-3 decision reinstated the drug convictions of two Minnesota men who were observed by an officer who had peeked through the window blinds of a ground-floor apartment. The men, who were seen putting white powder into bags, did not live in the apartment nor were they overnight guests. <\/p>\n
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL <\/p>\n
April 8, 1998 | GREG KRIKORIAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER <\/p>\n
In the abstract, there are few civil liberties the average person holds as dear as the constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures. But that affection is often tested when the 4th Amendment, like a bolted front door, is all that stands between police and the arrest of someone who officers say is a criminal. That is precisely the issue in what many legal observers are calling a groundbreaking case now before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Alarcon. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The rest is here: CALIFORNIA | LOCAL November 7, 2011 | By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times Sunset Strip bookie Charlie Katz suspected the feds had bugged his apartment, so he would amble over to a pay phone outside where Carney's hot dog joint now stands to call in his bets to Boston and Miami Continue reading
\nArticles about Fourth Amendment - latimes<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"