WOW.com Web Search

Search results

1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network

2. Our editors' favorite phone cases of 2023 - AOL

   www.aol.com/news/editors-favorite-phone-cases...

   The best phone cases of 2023. The below options come entirely recommended by Select staff and are in line with expert guidance. Casetify Smiley, Black Ink. Case.

3. 7 iPhone Cases to Protect Your Device in Style - AOL

   www.aol.com/12-best-iphone-cases-protect...

   It'll protect your phone from drops, debris, and other such hazards, but it's also IP68 certified. That means that it can survive immersion in up 1.5 meters of water for up to 30 minutes. There's ...

4. 6 Waterproof Phone Cases That'll Keep Your Device Safe - AOL

   www.aol.com/6-waterproof-phone-cases-thatll...

   Underwater Smartphone Scuba Case. Most of the phone cases on this list are suitable for casual or limited underwater photography, but if you want to take your phone deep down with you with scuba ...

5. Carpenter v. United States - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

   Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it accesses historical CSLI records containing the ...

6. Katz v. United States - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

   Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses ...

7. Riley v. California - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California

   IV. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. [2] [3]