Digital Commons Network^™

Fourth Amendment Fairness, Richard M. Re

Michigan Law Review

Fourth Amendment doctrine is attentive to a wide range of interests, including security, informational privacy, and dignity. How should courts reconcile these competing concerns when deciding which searches and seizures are “unreasonable”? Current doctrine typically answers this question by pointing to interest aggregation: the various interests at stake are added up, placed on figurative scales, and compared, with the goal of promoting overall social welfare. But interest aggregation is disconnected from many settled doctrinal rules and leads to results that are unfair for individuals. The main alternative is originalism; but historical sources themselves suggest that the Fourth Amendment calls for …

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Fourth Amendment Right: Samson Court Errs In Choosing Proper Analytical Framework, Errs In Result, Parolees Lose Fourth Amendment Protection, Rachael A. Lynch

Akron Law Review

This Note will follow the Fourth Amendment from its origins to its modern application to parolee rights, as evidenced by the Samson Court. Part II focuses on the Fourth Amendment, from the circumstances surrounding its adoption to modern court cases that have applied its tenets to prisoners, probationers, and, finally, parolees. Part III details the Supreme Court’s decision in Samson v. California, including a thorough discussion of the facts that gave rise to the case and lower court decisions. Part IV explores the problems with the Court’s framework and suggests other possible frameworks the Court could have used to come …

The Conversational Consent Search: How “Quick Look” And Other Similar Searches Have Eroded Our Constitutional Rights, Alexander A. Mikhalevsky

Georgia State University Law Review

One area in which law enforcement agencies have stretched constitutional limits concerns the scope of a suspect’s consent to search his or her vehicle. Police forces across the country have tested the limits of consent by asking vague, conversational questions to suspects with the goal of obtaining a suspect’s consent to search, even though that individual may not want to allow the search or may not know that he or she has the right to deny consent.

Conversational phrases like “Can I take a quick look?” or “Can I take a quick look around?” have “emerg[ed] as . . . …

The Court Loses Its Way With The Global Positioning System: United States V. Jones Retreats To The “Classic Trespassory Search”, George M. Dery Iii, Ryan Evaro

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article analyzes United States v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court considered whether government placement of a global positioning system (GPS) device on a vehicle to follow a person’s movements constituted a Fourth Amendment “search.” The Jones Court ruled that two distinct definitions existed for a Fourth Amendment “search.” In addition to Katz v. United States’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard, which the Court had used exclusively for over four decades, the Court recognized a second kind of search that it called a “classic trespassory search.” The second kind of search occurs when officials physically trespass or intrude upon a constitutionally protected …

The Politics Of Privacy In The Criminal Justice System: Information Disclosure, The Fourth Amendment, And Statutory Law Enforcement Exemptions, Erin Murphy

Michigan Law Review

When criminal justice scholars think of privacy, they think of the Fourth Amendment. But lately its domain has become far less absolute. The United States Code currently contains over twenty separate statutes that restrict both the acquisition and release of covered information. Largely enacted in the latter part of the twentieth century, these statutes address matters vital to modern existence. They control police access to driver's licenses, educational records, health histories, telephone calls, email messages, and even video rentals. They conform to no common template, but rather enlist a variety of procedural tools to serve as safeguards - ranging from …

A Failure Of The Fourth Amendment & Equal Protection's Promise: How The Equal Protection Clause Can Change Discriminatory Stop And Frisk Policies, Brando Simeo Starkey

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Terry v. Ohio changed everything. Before Terry, Fourth Amendment law was settled. The Fourth Amendment had long required that police officers have probable cause in order to conduct Fourth Amendment invasions; to administer a "reasonable" search and seizure, the state needed probable cause. But in 1968, the Warren Court, despite its liberal reputation, lowered the standard police officers had to meet to conduct a certain type of search: the so-called "'stop' and 'frisk.'" A "stop and frisk" occurs when a police officer, believing a suspect is armed and crime is afoot, stops the suspect, conducts an interrogation, and pats him …

One More Good Reason For In-Car Videotaping Of Traffic Stops: An Accurate Assessment Of "Consent", Robert L. White

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

There are a number of reasons why legislative reform mandating the use of in-car cameras in police cruisers would benefit the criminal justice system in Illinois. In-car cameras provide evidence for cases involving traffic violations or intoxicated motorists. They produce instantly available training materials. They also assist victims of police misconduct, as well as officers defending themselves against misconduct claims. This Comment looks to add to this list of benefits the role in-car cameras can play in assessing the validity of consents to search that officers obtain during traffic stops.

Striking A Sincere Balance: A Reasonable Black Person Standard For "Location Plus Evasion" Terry Stops, Mia Carpiniello

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Randall Susskind originally proposed the "reasonable African American standard” for Terry stops as a way to minimize racial disparities in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. This paper will expand upon Susskind's suggested standard within the specific context of "location plus evasion" stops, in which suspects are stopped upon flight in a high-crime neighborhood. Part one will present the reasonable Black person standard in the context of Illinois v. Wardlow, a recent "location plus evasion case." Part one will then show how this alternative standard better accounts for Wardlow's "raced" decision to flee, the police officers' "raced" decision to stop him, and …

An Empirically Based Comparison Of American And European Regulatory Approaches To Police Investigation, Christopher Slobogin

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article takes a comparative and empirical look at two of the most significant methods of police investigation: searches for and seizures of tangible evidence and interrogation of suspects. It first compares American doctrine regulating these investigative tools with the analogous rules predominant in Europe. It then discusses research on the American system that sheds light on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two regulatory regimes.

Criminal Procedure: Tenth Circuit Erroneously Allows Officers' Intentions To Define Reasonable Searches: United States V. Carey, Jim Dowell

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Adversity Of Race And Place: Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In Illinois V. Wardlow, 528 S. Ct. 673 (2000), Adam B. Wolf

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Case Note lays out Wardlow's pertinent facts, describes the decisions of the Court and lower courts, and then analyzes the ramifications of the Court's holding. In particular, this Case Note argues that the Court's ruling recognizes substantially less Fourth Amendment protections for people of color and indigent citizens than for wealthy Caucasians. This perpetuates a cycle of humiliating experiences, as well as fear and mistrust of the police by many poor people of color.

Fourth Amendment Accommodations: (Un)Compelling Public Needs, Balancing Acts, And The Fiction Of Consent, Guy-Uriel E. Charles

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

The problems of public housing-including crime, drugs, and gun violence- have received an enormous amount of national attention. Much attention has also focused on warrantless searches and consent searches as solutions to these problems. This Note addresses the constitutionality of these proposals and asserts that if the Supreme Court's current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is taken to its logical extremes, warrantless searches in public housing can be found constitutional. The author argues, however, that such an interpretation fails to strike the proper balance between public need and privacy in the public housing context. The Note concludes by proposing alternative consent-based regimes …

Computers, Urinals, And The Fourth Amendment: Confessions Of A Patron Saint, Wayne R. Lafave

Michigan Law Review

At least the title indicates that the article is somehow concerned with "the Fourth Amendment," though for anyone who knows me or is at all familiar with my work, that piece of information hardly would come as a revelation. The fact of the matter is that I almost always write about the Fourth Amendment; I am in an academic rut so deep as to deserve recognition in the Guinness Book World of Records. Search and seizure has been my cheval de bataille during my entire time as a law professor and even when I was a mere law student. …

Protective Sweep Incident To A Lawful Arrest: An Analysis Of Its Validity Under The Federal And New York State Constitution, Steven M. Fox

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Probable Cause And Common Sense: A Reply To The Critics Of Illinois V. Gates, Joseph D. Grano

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this article reviews Gates's actual holding. Although one can view much of the Court's more interesting discussion of the two-pronged test as dicta, the majority and dissenters clearly did not regard it as such. The majority and dissenters disagreed, however, not only over the appropriate hearsay test but, more fundamentally, over the nature of probable cause itself. I will argue that one must resolve this more basic disagreement before properly addressing the hearsay issue.

Part II examines probable cause from an historical perspective. In this part, I attempt to demonstrate that both the English common law …

The Fourth Amendment And The Control Of Police Discretion, William J. Mertens

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment protects the security of people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" in two distinct (if overlapping) ways. First, it requires a sufficiently weighty public interest before the government's agents are allowed to search or seize. Thus, for example, probable cause is required for arrest. Whatever uncertainty there may be in the phrase "probable cause" (and, for that matter, however indefinite the idea of "arrest" may have become), in this context, at least, the probable cause standard requires the demonstration of objective facts that point with some probability to the guilt for some particular offense of the person arrested. …

Police Use Of Cctv Surveillance: Constitutional Implications And Proposed Regulations, Gary C. Robb

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article evaluates the constitutionality of CCTV "searches." Part I discusses the present uses being made of closed circuit technology and evaluates the merits of the CCTV surveillance system. The critical policy trade-off is the system's effectiveness in combatting crime against the resulting loss of privacy to individual citizens.

Part II considers the constitutional implications of CCTV use in terms of three major doctrines: the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures"; the constitutional right of privacy; and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association. This part briefly summarizes the state of the law concerning these constitutional …

Search And Seizure: A Treatise On The Fourth Amendment, William H. Erickson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment by Wayne R. LaFave

The Legitimation Of Electronic Eavesdropping: The Politics Of "Law And Order", Herman Schwartz

Michigan Law Review

This Article will examine some constitutional considerations raised by wiretapping and eavesdropping in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, the probable extent of such activity, the limitations imposed upon it by title III and the ABA Standards, and the arguments for the "necessity" of electronic surveillance. Finally, a few jaundiced comments will be offered about legislative and judicial lawmaking in the field of criminal justice, particularly in a time of crisis.

The Warren Court And Criminal Procedure, A. Kenneth Pye

Michigan Law Review

On October 5, 1953, Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the United States. During the fifteen years of his tenure as Chief Justice, fundamental changes in criminal procedure have resulted· from decisions of what is popularly called "the Warren Court." There may be a legitimate difference of opinion whether these changes constitute a "criminal law revolution" or merely an orderly evolution toward the application of civilized standards to the trial of persons accused of crime. Whatever the characterization, however, there can be little doubt that the developments of the past fifteen years have unalterably changed the course of .the administration …