English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

B VIRTUE of a 1961 Supreme Court decision,' the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure2 was extended to state as well as federal intrusions into the home. Prior to that time, however, the Supreme Court had distinguished between administrative investigations and criminal searches by holding that the fourth amendment did not require a search warrant for the former.3 This limitation upon the amendment was narrowly construed in People v. Laverne,4 where the New York Court of Appeals held that evidence obtained during an administrative search without a warrant cannot be constitutionally admissible in a subsequent criminal proceeding. In Laverne, a local building inspector entered the defendant's home, without his consent, pursuant to a local zoning ordinance5 authorizing investigations without a warrant. Once inside the home, the inspector discovered that the defendant was engaged in business activity proscribed both by the zoning ordinance and an earlier injunction.6 The inspector's testimony was subsequently introduced

Constitutional Law: Evidence Obtained during an Administrative Search without a Warrant Held Inadmissible in Subsequent Criminal Prosecution