Dustin Davis is excited to announce the opening of a new general practice law office downtown. He brings a wealth of knowledge and experience solving complex issues in family law, criminal defense, business law and personal injury matters. Dustin’s new law office is conveniently located downtown at 1225 S Church Street with plenty of free parking. The firm is accepting new clients and offers flexible payment options including cash, check or credit card.
In an opinion filed April 16, 2014, the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld every provision in a particular prenuptial agreement. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the State’s stance that prenuptial agreements are not against public policy. Rather, the Court noted that prenuptial agreements are actually beneficial to the best interests of the marriage. Of course, it should be noted that prenuptial agreements are only valid under certain circumstances. You should seek the advice of a lawyer if you are considering entering into a prenuptial agreement. The full text of the opinion can be found athttp://sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5217.pdf.
Just this February, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered another blow to individuals’ rights under the Fourth Amendment. In Fernandez v. California, the Supreme Court severely limited a tenant’s right to object to a warrantless search of one’s home. Most people are familiar with the Fourth Amendment, which provides that people shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Through numerous Supreme Court decisions, the Fourth Amendment has been chipped at and whittled down to its current form which many argue has been swallowed by exceptions. Of course, the most long-lasting search warrant exception has also been the most obvious – consent.
As recently as 2006 in Georgia v. Randolph, the Supreme Court held that when a tenant’s lack of consent to search a home conflicted with other co-tenants’ consent to a search, the tenant’s right to object and demand a warrant trumped the others’ consent. As the Supreme Court often does, they created yet another exception. Under Fernandez, a tenant’s objection to a warrantless search is only valid while he/she is still present. This opinion is troubling because it effectively provides yet another consent exception to the search warrant exception. The full text of the opinion can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf.