Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
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 …
Electronic Monitoring Of Probationers: A Step Toward Big Brother?, Julie M. Houk
Electronic Monitoring Of Probationers: A Step Toward Big Brother?, Julie M. Houk
Golden Gate University Law Review
Recently, high technology has found an application in the area of probation. Although the probation technology does not parallel the intrusiveness of some of the previously mentioned electronic surveillance techniques, such an application of high technology may lead to greater intrusions on not only the privacy of persons convicted of crimes, but on society in general. This comment will discuss an existing probationer surveillance program in New Mexico, an analysis of electronic surveillance under the fourth amendment, post-conviction rights, and whether or not such a monitoring program is a valid condition of probation under federal and state statues.