Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Searches (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Administrative searches (1)
- Border searches (1)
- Bucklew v. Precythe (1)
-
- Carpenter v. United States (1)
- Child witness (1)
- Children's testimony (1)
- Competence to be executed (1)
- Confrontation Right in Europe (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Criminal jurisprudence (1)
- Data (1)
- Data privacy (1)
- Electronic devices (1)
- Excessive Fines Clause (1)
- Execution methods (1)
- Flowers v. Mississippi (1)
- Forensic laboratory reports (1)
- Forensic searches (1)
- Fresh accusations (1)
- Gamble v. United States (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (1)
- Katz v. United States (1)
- Madison v. Alabama (1)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin (1)
- Probable cause (1)
- Remote confrontation (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The U.S. Supreme Court's 2018-2019 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Kristin Froehle
Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The U.S. Supreme Court's 2018-2019 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Kristin Froehle
Articles
Although the 2018-19 Term at the Supreme Court did not include any blockbuster rulings like Carpenter v. United States, the Court issued a number of significant criminal law and procedure rulings. It addressed warrantless blood-alcohol testing, the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the right to trial by jury, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, questions of incorporation, prisoners' competence to be executed, permissible methods of execution, and some important statutory interpretation questions. Looking back on the Term, Justice Gorsuch clearly solidified his position as the libertarian "swing" vote in criminal procedure cases. He joined the liberals to uphold a defendant's right to trial …
The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Book Chapters
This chapter examines the right of criminal defendants to be confronted with the witnesses against them. It first provides an overview of the nature, purposes, and costs of the confrontation right before discussing the history of the confrontation right. It then considers a range of issues that may arise in any jurisdiction (or in some cases, any common law jurisdiction) with regard to the confrontation right, using as a touchstone the current status of the right in the United States. In particular, it describes situations in which the question of whether a statement is testimonial typically arises, such as fresh …
Forensic Border Searches After Carpenter Require Probable Cause And A Warrant, Christopher I. Pryby
Forensic Border Searches After Carpenter Require Probable Cause And A Warrant, Christopher I. Pryby
Michigan Law Review
Under the border search doctrine, courts have upheld the federal government's practice of searching people and their possessions upon entry into or exit from the United States, without any requirement of suspicion, as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Since the advent of electronic devices with large storage capacities, courts have grappled with whether this definition of reasonableness continues to apply. So far, courts have consistently characterized “nonforensic” border inspections of electronic devices (for example, paging through photos on a phone) as “routine” searches that, like inspecting luggage brought across international lines, require no suspicion. But there is a circuit split …
Fourth Amendment Textualism, Jeffrey Bellin
Fourth Amendment Textualism, Jeffrey Bellin
Michigan Law Review
The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches” is one of the most storied constitutional commands. Yet after decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, a coherent definition of the term “search” remains surprisingly elusive. Even the justices know they have a problem. Recent opinions only halfheartedly apply the controlling “reasonable expectation of privacy” test and its wildly unpopular cousin, “third-party doctrine,” with a few justices in open revolt.
These fissures hint at the Court’s openness to a new approach. Unfortunately, no viable alternatives appear on the horizon. The justices themselves offer little in the way of a replacement. And scholars’ proposals exhibit …