Digital Commons Network^™

Binary Searches And The Central Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is frequently accused of doctrinal incoherence. A primary reason is the persistence of two competing conceptions of “unreasonable” search and seizure. The first is libertarian in character; it understands the Fourth Amendment’s command of reasonableness as establishing a constitutional boundary on investigative powers. On this view, the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure keeps society free by limiting the government’s investigative reach. The second conception understands the Fourth Amendment's prohibition as freedom against unjustified government intrusion. This conception of reasonableness is essentially pragmatic in character, balancing liberty and law-enforcement interests.

This article interrogates these competing conceptions by …

Second Amendment Plumbing After Heller: Of Incorporation, Standards Of Scrutiny, Well-Regulated Militias And Criminal Street Gangs, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ended one debate about the Second Amendment while beginning another.

Prior to Heller, the principal point on which courts and scholars had joined issue was whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms or a right to participate in an organized militia. In Heller, the Court came down on the individual-rights side while resolving little else about the extent to which the Second Amendment will constrain the power to regulate firearms. Among the many questions left for future litigation, the two most important …

Against Orthodoxy: Miranda Is Not Prophylactic And The Constitution Is Not Perfect, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

In the four decades since the decision in Miranda v. Arizona, two point of consensus have emerged about that decision. The first area of agreement is that Miranda’s rationale for requiring its now-famous warnings is wrong, or at least dramatically overstated. In Michigan v. Tucker, the Court first labeled Miranda warnings as “prophylactic standards.” For their part, Miranda’s advocates do not spend much time defending its conception of unwarned custodial interrogation as inherently coercive. The second point of agreement is that Miranda has turned out to be a failure combating the coercive nature of custodial interrogation. Despite Miranda, coerced confessions …