Law Commons^™

The Applicability Of Miranda Warnings To Non-Felony Offenses: Is The Proper Standard "Custodial Interrogation" Or "Severity Of The Offense"?, Kenneth W. Gaul

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that the proper standard for determining the necessity of the Miranda warnings for any offense is the existence of custodial interrogation. When interrogation for non-felony offenses takes place in a custodial atmosphere, Miranda warnings should be required, as they are for more serious offenses. Part I summarizes the two basic approaches taken by courts that have confronted the question of the applicability of the Miranda warnings to non-felony offenses. Part Ill argues that neither the rationale for the Miranda doctrine nor the roots of the fifth amendment support a distinction based on the severity of the offense …

Probable Cause And Common Sense: A Reply To The Critics Of Illinois V. Gates, Joseph D. Grano

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this article reviews Gates's actual holding. Although one can view much of the Court's more interesting discussion of the two-pronged test as dicta, the majority and dissenters clearly did not regard it as such. The majority and dissenters disagreed, however, not only over the appropriate hearsay test but, more fundamentally, over the nature of probable cause itself. I will argue that one must resolve this more basic disagreement before properly addressing the hearsay issue.

Part II examines probable cause from an historical perspective. In this part, I attempt to demonstrate that both the English common law …

"Seizures" Typology: Classifying Detentions Of The Person To Resolve Warrant, Grounds, And Search Issues, Wayne R. Lafave

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This seizures typology constitutes a most important part of extant fourth amendment doctrine. The precision with which and perspective from which such classifications are drawn is obviously a matter of considerable interest to the police, who must in the first instance resolve these warrant, grounds, and search issues. It is also an appropriate subject of broader concern, as the shape of these categories has a critical bearing upon the effectiveness of our law enforcement processes and the extent of our protected liberty and privacy. The following comments are directed to this seizures typology.

The Pretext Search Doctrine: Now You See It, Now You Don't, John M. Burkoff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One can only hope, to put it bluntly, that the Supreme Court majority in Villamonte-Marquez did not mean what it seemed to have said. Indeed, there is some evidence that this is precisely the case. In the same Term Villamonte-Marquez was decided, the Court also decided Texas v. Brown. In Brown, the Supreme Court continued to recognize and respond to the problem of pretext searches. In other words, the Court still acts as if the pretext search doctrine remains vital, despite the apparent body blow delivered to it in Scott and Villamonte-Marquez. The remainder of this Article …

The Fourth Amendment And The Control Of Police Discretion, William J. Mertens

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment protects the security of people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" in two distinct (if overlapping) ways. First, it requires a sufficiently weighty public interest before the government's agents are allowed to search or seize. Thus, for example, probable cause is required for arrest. Whatever uncertainty there may be in the phrase "probable cause" (and, for that matter, however indefinite the idea of "arrest" may have become), in this context, at least, the probable cause standard requires the demonstration of objective facts that point with some probability to the guilt for some particular offense of the person arrested. …