Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Basis of proportionality review (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Excessive punishment (1)
-
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment history (1)
- General searches (1)
- General warrants (1)
- Independent judgment (1)
- No-knock entries (1)
- Nocturnal Searches (1)
- O'Neil v. Vermont (1)
- Probable cause (1)
- Reasonableness standard (1)
- Solem v. Helm (1)
- Unreasonable searches and seizures (1)
- William J. Cuddihy (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Framing The Fourth, Tracey Maclin, Julia Mirabella
Framing The Fourth, Tracey Maclin, Julia Mirabella
UF Law Faculty Publications
Book Review of "The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning", 602-1791. By William J. Cuddihy. Oxford and New York: Oxford Press. 2009. Pp. lxviii, 940. $165. History is again an important element of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis. In Wyoming v. Houghton, Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court announced that a historical inquiry is the starting point for every Fourth Amendment case. William Cuddihy’s book on the origins and original meaning of the Fourth Amendment will undoubtedly assist the Justices (and everyone else) in understanding the history of search and seizure law. Cuddihy’s historical analysis is unprecedented. As Justice …
Rethinking Proportionality Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause, John F. Stinneford
Rethinking Proportionality Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause, John F. Stinneford
UF Law Faculty Publications
Although a century has passed since the Supreme Court started reviewing criminal punishments for excessiveness under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, this area of doctrine remains highly problematic. The Court has never answered the claim that proportionality review is illegitimate in light of the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning. The Court has also adopted an ever-shifting definition of excessiveness, making the very concept of proportionality incoherent. Finally, the Court’s method of measuring proportionality is unreliable and self contradictory. As a result, a controlling plurality of the Court has insisted that proportionality review be limited to a narrow class of cases. …