Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note analyzes the Young court’s opinion and the potential consequences of the majority’s cursory rejection of the government’s inevitable discovery argument. This Note also reconciles the differing applications of the inevitable discovery doctrine by the Young majority and dissent and highlights the speculative nature of employing the inevitable discovery doctrine based on the facts of Young. Part I of this Note presents the background of the case and the historical development of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, focusing on the inevitable discovery doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams. Part II outlines the Young decision and analyzes …
Dangerous Balance: The Ninth Circuit's Validation Of Expansive Dna Testing Of Federal Parolees, Claire S. Hulse
Dangerous Balance: The Ninth Circuit's Validation Of Expansive Dna Testing Of Federal Parolees, Claire S. Hulse
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I provides a background of federal DNA testing legislation, the Fourth Amendment implications of DNA testing and two DNA testing cases leading up to the U.S. v. Kincade decision. Part II analyzes the plurality and dissenting opinions of the U.S. v. Kincade decision. Part III argues that the plurality's balancing test has a potential for inappropriate application. Finally, Part IV concludes that the Kincade balancing test should be narrowly applied as precedent after a meaningful balancing of interests, and not as a facade for ever-expanding government interests.
An Unreasonable Online Search: How A Sheriffs Webcams Strengthened Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights Of Pretrial Detainees, Ian Wood
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note will discuss how courts approach pretrial detainees' claims of punishment, exploring both Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. It will go on to discuss Demery's implications for Fourth Amendment privacy rights of pretrial detainees. Part I explores the protections pretrial detainees are afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause." Part l.A discusses the general differences between pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. Part I.B considers two Supreme Court cases - Bell v. Wolfish and Block v. Rutherford - that address the standards used in evaluating punishment claims in a pretrial detention context …
Throw A Dog A Suspect: When Using Police Dogs Becomes An Unreasonable Use Of Force Under The Fourth Amendment, Lisa K. Sloman
Throw A Dog A Suspect: When Using Police Dogs Becomes An Unreasonable Use Of Force Under The Fourth Amendment, Lisa K. Sloman
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note contends that a dog bite lasting up to a minute is excessive force under these circumstances and violated Miller's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. Part I of this Note provides a general synthesis of current Fourth Amendment seizure law as it applies to using police dogs. Part II discusses the facts of Miller and the court's application of current case law to those facts. Finally, Part III argues that the court failed to properly apply existing Fourth Amendment seizure law to the facts in Miller, and therefore, the force used was unreasonable.
Criminal Procedure - Powers V. Plumas Unified School District, Marnee Milner
Criminal Procedure - Powers V. Plumas Unified School District, Marnee Milner
Golden Gate University Law Review
In a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit in Powers v. Plumas Unified School District addresses whether a dog sniff of a person constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Because the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, there is a split among circuit courts. The Fifth Circuit, contrary to the Seventh Circuit, holds that a dog sniff of a person constitutes a search. The Ninth Circuit agrees with the Fifth Circuit. In Powers, the Ninth Circuit found that a dog sniff of the plaintiff deprived him of his constitutional right to be free from …
In Re Tyrell J.: Children And Their Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy, Shelley Davis
In Re Tyrell J.: Children And Their Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy, Shelley Davis
Golden Gate University Law Review
In re Tyrell J. examines the parameters of warrantless searches of juvenile probationers. In Tyrell, the California Supreme Court limited the use of the exclusionary rule as applied to unconstitutional searches. This note will discuss the history of the exclusionary rule and the probation search exceptions. The note will then examine the court's reasoning in Tyrell. The note will conclude by contending that the Tyrell majority disregarded the constitutional protections afforded adult citizens, and in effect reinterpreted the United States Supreme Court's "reasonableness standards."
The Curtilage Of Oliver V. United States And United States V. Dunn: How Far Is Too Far?, Thomas E. Curran Iii
The Curtilage Of Oliver V. United States And United States V. Dunn: How Far Is Too Far?, Thomas E. Curran Iii
Golden Gate University Law Review
Oliver and Dunn present substantial difficulties to police and courts attempting to implement the rules of the cases in the field and courtrooms. An examination of the two cases reveals that no genuinely autonomous doctrine has been revived: applying the open fields "doctrine" of Oliver and Dunn involves virtually the same inquiries as the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test of Katz. Rather than providing a bright line rule that will efficiently dispose of fourth amendment problems, it is readily foreseeable that in addition to challenges under Katz, defendants will also routinely challenge residential searches under Oliver and Dunn. Because analysis …
Criminal Law And Procedure, Cheryl C. Rouse, William M. Audet, Grant D. Green, Robert F. Waggener
Criminal Law And Procedure, Cheryl C. Rouse, William M. Audet, Grant D. Green, Robert F. Waggener
Golden Gate University Law Review
No abstract provided.