Law Commons^™

Fourth Amendment Infringement Is Afoot: Revitalizing Particularized Reasonable Suspicion For Terry Stops Based On Vague Or Discrepant Suspect Descriptions, Caroline E. Lewis

William & Mary Law Review

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court granted law enforcement broad power to perform a limited stop and search of someone when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. The resulting “Terry stop” created a way for police officers to investigate a suspicious person without requiring full probable cause for an arrest. The officer need only have “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” based on the circumstances and the officer’s policing “experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” Reasonable suspicion is—by design—a broad standard, deferential to police officers’ judgment. Law enforcement officers …

Imposing A Daily Burden On Thousands Of Innocent Citizens: The Supreme Court Unnecessarily Limited Motorists' Fourth Amendment Rights In Kansas V. Glover, George M. Dery

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article analyzes Kansas v. Glover, in which the Supreme Court ruled that an officer could stop a vehicle owned by a person having a revoked license on the assumption that the owner was currently driving the vehicle. This work examines the concerns created by Glover’s ruling. This Article asserts that, in creating its new rule enabling police to stop a motorist without first confirming his or her identity, the Court based its holding on the existence of two facts, thus effectively changing its traditional “totality of the circumstances” analysis for reasonable suspicion to a categorical rule. Further, …

Frankly, It's A Mess: Requiring Courts To Transparently "Redline" Affidavits In The Face Of Franks Challenges, Diana Bibb

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Part I provides a brief overview of the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, and the exclusionary rule. Part II discusses Franks v. Delaware, the development of the challenge’s framework, and subsequent expansions to the doctrine made by the lower courts. Next, Part III argues that, despite the aforementioned expansions, courts have consistently weakened Franks. Notably, the Supreme Court refuses to consider Franks issues, including the multitude of splits over which standard of review is applicable. Moreover, some circuits have developed their own minute rules that have chiseled away at the effectiveness of a Franks challenge. Part IV proposes that …

Divided Court Issues Bright-Line Ruling On Fourth Amendment Seizures, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Argument Analysis: Justices Spar Over Stare Decisis, Originalism, Text And What Counts As A Fourth Amendment “Seizure”, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Case Preview: When Is A Fleeing Suspect “Seized”?, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable “searches” and “seizures.” On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Torres v. Madrid, a case that will provide important guidance on what constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure. Here’s a rundown of the case starting with the relevant facts and procedural history, followed by a discussion of the legal issues and finally a couple of things to watch for at the argument.

Seizing A Cell Phone Incident To Arrest: Data Extraction Devices, Faraday Bags, Or Aluminum Foil As A Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, Rachel Jones

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Shakin' And Bakin': The Supreme Court's Remarkable Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1999 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Future Of The Fourth Amendment: The Problem With Privacy, Poverty And Policing, Kami Chavis Simmons

Faculty Publications

For decades, the reasonable expectation of privacy has been the primary standard by which courts have determined whether a "search" has occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. v. Jones, however, has reinvigorated the physical trespass doctrine's importance when determining whether there has been a "search" triggering constitutional protection. Recognizing the unpredictability of the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine and that doctrine's bias against the urban poor, many scholars hope that the Jones opinion may ameliorate the class divide that has developed in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

This Article argues that while …

Seizing A Cell Phone Incident To Arrest: Data Extraction Devices, Faraday Bags, Or Aluminum Foil As A Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar

Articles

There has been a good deal of talk lately to the effect that Miranda1 is dead or dying-or might as well be dead.2 Even liberals have indicated that the death of Miranda might not be a bad thing. This brings to mind a saying by G.K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up."4

Georgia V. Randolph, The Red-Headed Stepchild Of An Ugly Family: Why Third Party Consent Search Doctrine Is An Unfortunate Fourth Amendment Development That Should Be Restrained, Aubrey H. Brown

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

1984 Arrives: Thought(Crime), Technology, And The Constitution, William Federspiel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Sacrificing The End To The Means": The Constitutionality Of Suspicionless Subway Searches, Katherine Lee Martin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"A Man's Home Is His Castle?": Reflections On The Home, The Family, And Privacy During The Late Nineteenth And Early Twentieth Centuries, Jonathan L. Hafetz

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Frontier: With No Clear Path Prepared, Court Takes On Two More Police Powers Cases, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Curbside Justice: Court Gives Police The Green Light To Arrest For Minor Infractions, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Determining Reasonableness Under The Fourth Amendment: Physical Force To Control And Punish Students, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Public School Officials' Use Of Physical Force As A Fourth Amendment Seizure: Protecting Students From The Constitutional Chasm Between The Fourth And Fourteenth Amendments, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Section 4: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Choosing Perspectives In Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Bacigal examines the Supreme Court's use of various perspectives in examining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court purports to rely on a consistent method of constitutional analysis when rendering decisions on Fourth Amendment issues, the case law in this area indicates that the Court is influenced sometimes by the citizen's perspective, sometimes by the police officers' perspective, and sometimes by the perspective of the hypothesized reasonable person.

After identifying the role of perspectives in a number of seminal Court decisions, Professor Bacigal discusses the benefits and limitations of the Court's reliance on …

The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures And The French Experience, Florence Sophie Boreil

LLM Theses and Essays

Under the American approach to criminal justice, freedom of the individual is of the utmost importance. The American criminal justice system reflects a distrust of abuse of power and an emphasis on protection of personal freedom. However, the French take a contrary approach; under French law, freedom is achieved through the State. This paper examines the protection of individuals’ rights in American and French criminal procedure. Focus will be given to tracking the police investigatory powers in each country through searches and seizures, and the impact that those powers have on individuals’ rights. This paper will assert that the police …

The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Many commentators have observed that when we speak of "the Warren Court," we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1962 (when Arthur Goldberg replaced Felix Frankfurter) to 1969 (when Earl Warren retired). But when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1961 (when the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio was decided) to 1966 or 1967. In its final years, the Warren Court was not the same Court that had handed down Mapp or Miranda v. Arizona.

An End Run Around The Exclusionary Rule: The Use Of Illegally Seized Evidence Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Victor Jay Miller

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Good Faith, The Exclusionary Remedy, And Rule-Oriented Adjudication In The Criminal Process, Gerald G. Ashdown

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dimensions Of Seizure: The Concepts Of "Stop" And "Arrest", Richard A. Williamson

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.