Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
'I Know My Rights, You Go'n Need A Warrant For That:' The Fourth Amendment, Riley's Impact, And Warrantless Searches Of Third-Party Clouds, Laurie Buchan Serafino
'I Know My Rights, You Go'n Need A Warrant For That:' The Fourth Amendment, Riley's Impact, And Warrantless Searches Of Third-Party Clouds, Laurie Buchan Serafino
Laurie B. Serafino
Scholars have frequently suggested that the Fourth Amendment ought to be applied with varying degrees of rigor depending on the seriousness of the crime investigated. Courts have largely rejected such an offense-specific approach to constitutional protections, but have demonstrated deference to the Executive Branch in matters of national security in other contexts. The particularly heightened concern raised by the threat of terrorism suggests that, at least in the context of these most serious of cases, courts ought to engage in some form of balance that recognizes the uniquely strong government interest. Such an approach, however, has to recognize that the …
You Booze, You Bruise, You Lose: Analyzing The Constitutionality Of Florida’S Involuntary Blood Draw Statute In The Wake Of Missouri V. Mcneely, Francisco D. Zornosa
You Booze, You Bruise, You Lose: Analyzing The Constitutionality Of Florida’S Involuntary Blood Draw Statute In The Wake Of Missouri V. Mcneely, Francisco D. Zornosa
Francisco D Zornosa
No abstract provided.
Amicus Brief -- Riley V. California And United States V. Wurie, Charles E. Maclean, Adam Lamparello
Amicus Brief -- Riley V. California And United States V. Wurie, Charles E. Maclean, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
Warrantless searches of cell phone memory—after a suspect has been arrested, and after law enforcement has seized the phone—would have been unconstitutional at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted, and are unconstitutional now. Simply stated, they are unreasonable. And reasonableness—not a categorical warrant requirement—is the “touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis.”
The Rise And Fall Of The Exclusionary Rule, Albert E. Poirier Jr.
The Rise And Fall Of The Exclusionary Rule, Albert E. Poirier Jr.
Albert E Poirier Jr.
The years between 1913 and 1967 saw a growing tendency on the part of the Supreme Court to allow the submission of evidence that had been gained unlawfully by the police or prosecutors. Since 1961, and particularly during the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts, the rules excluding evidence have steadily diminished. This paper seeks to review the history of the exclusionary rule.