Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
When The Police Get The Law Wrong: How Heien V. North Carolina Further Erodes The Fourth Amendment, Vivan M. Rivera
When The Police Get The Law Wrong: How Heien V. North Carolina Further Erodes The Fourth Amendment, Vivan M. Rivera
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Failing To Keep "Easy Cases Easy": Florida V. Jardines Refuses To Reconcile Inconsistencies In Fourth Amendment Privacy Law By Instead Focusing On Physical Trespass, George M. Dery Iii
Failing To Keep "Easy Cases Easy": Florida V. Jardines Refuses To Reconcile Inconsistencies In Fourth Amendment Privacy Law By Instead Focusing On Physical Trespass, George M. Dery Iii
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
This Article analyzes Florida v. Jardines, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a canine sniff of a home from the front porch was a Fourth Amendment search. In reaching this ruling, the Court employed the property-rights definition of a search newly recovered the prior term in United States v. Jones instead of applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test created in Katz v. United States. This work examines the concerns created by Jardines’s ruling. This Article asserts that Jardines refused to resolve a potentially troubling incongruity between Kyllo v. United States, precedent that exalted the privacy of the home, …
What's In A Name? A Case For Including Biometric Identifiers On Arrest Warrants, Ryan Webb
What's In A Name? A Case For Including Biometric Identifiers On Arrest Warrants, Ryan Webb
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Too often, innocent individuals sharing the same name and physical characteristics as the subject of an arrest warrant are misidentified and mistakenly held by law enforcement. The use of biometric identifiers, commonly known as fingerprint identification numbers, would help reduce the number of false arrests because a person’s fingerprints are entirely unique to that individual. Hearkening back to 1894, the Supreme Court’s prevailing interpretation of the particularity requirement of arrest warrants mandates only that the warrant include a subject’s name or general physical description. With such a low threshold to establish a facially valid warrant, law enforcement officers are essentially …