Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Let's Talk About Sex (Education): A Novel Interpretation Of The Meyer-Pierce Standard Governing Parental Control In Public Schools, Jacqueline Webb Sep 2007

Let's Talk About Sex (Education): A Novel Interpretation Of The Meyer-Pierce Standard Governing Parental Control In Public Schools, Jacqueline Webb

Jacqueline Webb

This Comment addresses the importance of parental control with regard to sex education in public schools and provides a workable middle of the road standard which balances the Constitutionally-granted rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children with the State’s interest in the education of its youngest citizens.

This Comment argues that the Meyer-Pierce standard has been incorrectly interpreted as creating two polar opposite views with regard to parental control in public schools, and a middle of the road standard is a more suitable application which protects both the parents’ Constitutionally-granted rights and the States’ interest. Part II …


Reforming Eyewitness Identification Procedures Under The Fourth Amendment, Sarah Anne Mourer Aug 2007

Reforming Eyewitness Identification Procedures Under The Fourth Amendment, Sarah Anne Mourer

Sarah Mourer

This article proposes that the high probability of misidentification associated with unregulated eyewitness identification procedures requires Fourth Amendment protections. This risk of misidentification amounts to a significant privacy intrusion under the Fourth Amendment. The physical aspect of a lineup is recognized by courts as a privacy invasion pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. Courts, such as Davis. v. Mississippi, also suggest that the lack of reliability of pretrial investigatory procedures requires heightened Fourth Amendment protections. This article also examines the fact that a procedural due process analysis of eyewitness identifications alone fails to protect citizens from misidentification and should not be …


Domestic Surveillance For International Terrorists: Presidential Power And Fourth Amendment Limits, Richard H. Seamon Aug 2007

Domestic Surveillance For International Terrorists: Presidential Power And Fourth Amendment Limits, Richard H. Seamon

Richard H Seamon

After 9/11, the President authorized the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of American residents. Critics of this so called “Terrorist Surveillance Program” (TSP) say it violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment. Defenders of the TSP counter that, regardless whether it violates FISA, it falls within the President's congressionally irreducible power to protect national security and within the relaxed Fourth Amendment governing national security searches. This article focuses on the overlooked connection between the issues of whether the TSP (1) falls within the President’s powers; or (2) violates the Fourth Amendment. …


Originalism & Early Civil Search Statutes: The Misunderstood History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila, Jr. Dec 2006

Originalism & Early Civil Search Statutes: The Misunderstood History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila, Jr.

Fabio Arcila Jr.

Originalist analyses of the Framers’ views about governmental search power have devoted insufficient attention to the civil search statutes they promulgated. What attention has been paid, primarily as part of what I term the “conventional account,” has it that the Framers were divided about how accessible search remedies should be. This article explains why this conventional account is mostly wrong, and explores the lessons to be learned from the statutory choices the Framers made with regard to search and seizure law.

In enacting civil search statutes, the Framers chose to depart from common law standards and instead largely followed the …


The Technology Of Surveillance: Will The Supreme Court's Expectations Ever Resemble Society's?, Stephen E. Henderson Dec 2006

The Technology Of Surveillance: Will The Supreme Court's Expectations Ever Resemble Society's?, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

For law students studying criminal procedure—or at least for those cramming for the exam—it becomes a mantra: government conduct only implicates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches if it invades a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This is not the contemporary definition of the word “search,” nor was it the definition at the time of the founding. But, via a well-intentioned concurrence by Justice Harlan in the famous 1967 case of Katz v. United States, it became the Court’s definition.
This lack of fealty to the English language left some questions. For example, is determining whether someone has a “reasonable …


Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson Dec 2006

Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

For at least thirty years the Supreme Court has adhered to its third-party doctrine in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, meaning that so far as a disclosing party is concerned, information in the hands of a third party receives no Fourth Amendment protection. The doctrine was controversial when adopted, has been the target of sustained criticism, and is the predominant reason that the Katz revolution has not been the revolution many hoped it would be. Some forty years after Katz the Court's search jurisprudence largely remains tied to property conceptions. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, however, the doctrine is not the …