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

Law Commons

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

Constitutional Law

PDF

Golden Gate University School of Law

2010

Constitutional law

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Constitutional Law - Colacurcio V. City Of Kent, Zachary J. Dalton Sep 2010

Constitutional Law - Colacurcio V. City Of Kent, Zachary J. Dalton

Golden Gate University Law Review

In Colacurcio v. City of Kent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the City of Kent's Ordinance 3221, which required nude dancers to perform at least ten feet from patrons, did not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court found that, as a matter of law, the Kent ordinance was content-neutral and the ten-foot distance requirement was narrowly tailored and left open ample alternative avenues for communication of protected expression.


Constitutional Law Summary, Carol A. Farmer, Thomas A. Johnson Sep 2010

Constitutional Law Summary, Carol A. Farmer, Thomas A. Johnson

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Constitutional Law, Christopher Windle Sep 2010

Constitutional Law, Christopher Windle

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave Jan 2010

Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave

Publications

People v. Gonzales involved an issue that continues to divide lawyers, judges, scholars, politicians, as well as the general public: how best to protect individuals from law enforcement conduct that violates constitutional protections? This question is particularly controversial in the context of a criminal case, since the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence often results in the alleged criminal going free. In Gonzales, the California Supreme Court was asked to adopt the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of constitutional rights. A majority of California Supreme Court justices answered this in the negative. Justice Carter disagreed, and his analysis provided …