Digital Commons Network^™

Restrictions On The State's Use Of Mental Health Experts In Capital Trials, W. Lawrence Fitch

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Aliens' Fourth Amendment Rights Against Government Searches Abroad—United States V. Verdugo-Urquidez, 856 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1988), Cert. Granted, 109 S. Ct. 1741 (1989), Richard J. Dolan

Washington Law Review

The "war on drugs" and the effort to contain international terrorism have raised questions of when the Constitution restricts the actions of the United States government abroad. This Note analyzes United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a case in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that aliens have fourth amendment rights against United States government searches of their residences abroad. The Note agrees that the court's holding was correct, but suggests the court's "natural rights" theory was too broad to comport with prior Supreme Court limitations of aliens' constitutional rights. Instead, the Note suggests that the relationship between an alien …

The Law Of Pretrial Interrogation, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The existing rules in the United States governing the questioning of suspects in custody are based on the Supreme Court's five to four decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Court in Miranda promulgated a new, code-like set of rules for custodial questioning, including the creation of a right to counsel in connection with custodial questioning, a requirement of warnings, a prohibition of questioning unless the suspect affirmatively waives the rights set out in the warnings, and a prohibition of questioning if the suspect asks for a lawyer or indicates in any manner that he is unwilling to talk. These …

The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This guaranty is not self-executing, however, and the courts and criminal justice systems in this country have long been bedeviled by questions concerning appropriate methods of ensuring its observance. As a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio, the method principally relied upon today is a judicially created rule excluding from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights.

The search and seizure …

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

National Treasury Employees Union V. Von Raab: A Broader Special Needs Warrant Exception Dilutes Fourth Amendment Protection, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 903 (1989), Kathryn Schierl

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.