Law Commons^™

Introduction: Trends And Developments With Respect To That Amendment 'Central To Enjoyment Of Other Guarantees Of The Bill Of Rights', Yale Kamisar

Articles

Seventy years ago, in the famous Weeks case,' the Supreme Court evoked a storm of controversy by promulgating the federal exclusionary rule. When, a half-century later, in the landmark Mapp case,2 the Court extended the Weeks rule to state criminal proceedings, at least one experienced observer assumed that the controversy "today finds its end." 3 But as we all know now, Mapp only intensified the controversy. Indeed, in recent years spirited debates over proposals to modify the exclusionary rule or to scrap it entirely have filled the air - and the law reviews.'

Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Illinois v. Gates1 was the most eagerly awaited constitutional-criminal procedure case of the 1982 Term. I think it fair to say, however, that it was awaited a good deal more eagerly by law enforcement officials and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement than by defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. As it turned out, of course, the Gates Court, to the disappointment of many, did not reach the question whether the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases should be modified so as not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment when …

Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White

Michigan Law Review

Most contemporary discussions of the "exclusionary rule" assume or assert that this "rule" is not part of the fourth amendment, nor required by its terms, but is rather a judicial "remedy" that was fashioned to protect those rights (against unreasonable search and seizure) that actually are granted by the fourth amendment. The protection is said to work by "deterring" official violations; this is, however, an odd use of the word, for the rule does not punish violations but merely deprives the government of some of the benefits that might ensue from them, namely the use in the criminal case of …

The Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Article establishes that the government has a right to search for and seize evidence of crime. Part II develops the corollary proposition that the fourth amendment does not protect the right to secrete evidence of crime. Part III explores the impact of the reasonable expectation of privacy concept on the innocent. Part IV evaluates consent searches and their effect on the innocent. Finally, Part V considers the exclusionary rule as a device for protecting the innocent.

Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

[U]ntil the [exclusionary rule] rests on a principled basis rather than an empirical proposition, [the rule] will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium. Mapp v. Ohio, which overruled the then twelve-year-old Wolf case and imposed the fourth amendment exclusionary rule (the Weeks doctrine) on the states as a matter of fourteenth amendment due process, seemed to mark the end of an era. Concurring in Mapp, Justice Douglas recalled that Wolf had evoked "a storm of constitutional controversy which only today finds its end."' But in the two decades since Justice Douglas made this observation, the storm of controversy has …

Interview Notes Of Government Agents Under The Jencks Act, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Most courts that have considered the issue have concluded that the Jencks Act does not require the government to retain and produce rough interview notes. This Note examines the language and purpose of the Act to determine whether interview notes should be considered Jencks Act statements. Part I examines the policy underlying the Jencks Act and argues that the majority position sanctioning pre-trial destruction of interview notes conflicts with these statutory purposes. Part II discusses the statutory language and argues that the status of the witness as a government agent or a private individual determines the applicable section of the …

Search And Seizure Of America: The Case For Keeping The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Twenty years ago, concurring in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Justice William 0. Douglas looked back on Wolf v. Colorado (1949) (which had held that the Fourth Amendment's substantive protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" was binding on the states through the due process clause, but that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule was not) and recalled that the Wolf case had evoked "a storm of controversy which only today finds its end." But, of course, in the twenty years since Justice Douglas made that observation the storm of controversy has only intensified, and it has engulfed the exclusionary rule in federal …

The Privacy Protection Act Of 1980: Curbing Unrestricted Third-Party Searches In The Wake Of Zurcher V. Stanford Daily, Jose M. Sariego

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article analyzes the Privacy Protection Act as a response to Zurcher. Part I discusses the Zurcher decision and its effect on First and Fourth Amendment rights, as well as its impact on state testimonial privileges. Part II critically examines key features of the statute, focusing on the parties and materials protected, the police practices regulated, the remedies provided for violations, and the Act's constitutional underpinnings. Part II also offers suggestions for remedying the problems the Act currently presents. The article concludes that the Privacy Protection Act, while a necessary first step to minimizing the impact of Zurcher, is …

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Exclusionary Rule: Reasonable Remarks On Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Can we live with the so-called exclusionary rule, which bars the use of illegally gained evidence in criminal trials? Can the Fourth Amendment live without it? A growing number of lawyers and judges, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, have called for abandonment of the rule, usually on the ground that it has not prevented illegal searches and seizures and on the ground that the rule has contributed significantly to the increase in crime. No one has convincingly demonstrated a causal link between the high rate of crime in America and the exclusionary rule, and I do not believe that any …

A Defense Of The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

The exclusionary rule is being flayed with increasing vigor by a number of unrelated sources and with a variety of arguments. Some critics find it unworkable and resort to empirically based arguments. Others see it as the product of a belated and unwarranted judicial interpretation. Still others, uncertain whether the rule works, are confident that in some fashion law enforcement's hands are tied. Professor Yale Kamisar, long a defender of the exclusionary rule, reviews the current attacks on the rule and offers a vigorous rebuttal. He finds it difficult to accept that there is a line for acceptable police conduct …

The Exclusionary Rule In Historical Perspective: The Struggle To Make The Fourth Amendment More Than 'An Empty Blessing', Yale Kamisar

Articles

In the 65 years since the Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule, few critics have attacked it with as much vigor and on as many fronts as did Judge Malcolm Wilkey in his recent Judicature article, "The exclusionary rule: why suppress valid evidence?" (November 1978).

The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence: Of Privileges And The Division Of Rule-Making Power, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes that the lower federal courts accord the same binding authority to the Proposed Rules that they give those judicially promulgated procedural rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that have been implicitly approved by Congress.

Part I of the Note analyzes the constitutional division of the rule-making power by examining both the policy considerations involved and the relevant constitutional language and doctrines. That examination indicates that the power to establish such rules is shared by Congress and the Supreme Court. To determine when that power is appropriately exercised by one branch rather than the other, …

Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

More than 50 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided the Weeks case, barring the use in federal prosecutions of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the Silverthorne case, invoking what has come to be known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The justices who decided those cases would, I think, be quite surprised to learn that some day the value of the exclusionary rule would be measured by-and the very life of the rule might depend on-an empirical evaluation of its efficacy in deterring police misconduct. These justices were engaged in a less …

Foreword: Brewer V. Williams--A Hard Look At A Discomfiting Record, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In recent decades, few matters have split the Supreme Court, troubled the legal profession, and agitated the public as much as the police interrogation-confession cases. The recent case of Brewer v. Williams3 is as provocative as any, because the Supreme Court there revdrsed the defendant's conviction for the "savage murder of a small child" even though no Justice denied his guilt,4 he was warned of his rights no fewer than five times, 5 and any "interrogation" that might have occurred seemed quite mild.6

The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The confrontation clause is that language of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution which provides, "[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Despite the seemingly absolute language of the confrontation clause, which would suggest that no hearsay evidence may be admitted against an accused in a criminal proceeding, its guarantee has been subject to exception. For example, when either a witness to an event or his testimony is shown to be unavailable, others will be allowed to testify as to the information which the declarant-witness has related …

Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

On November 20, 1972, the Supreme Court, pursuant to statutory authority, adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The new rules of evidence were not to take effect, however, until ninety days after they had been submitted to Congress. The rules were officially submitted on February 5, 1973, but even before that date they had become the subject of extensive legislative debate. While some attorneys praise the codification of evidence rules as a progressive step, others maintain that certain of these promulgations will have an objectionable impact on the federal judicial system or that the Supreme Court has exceeded its authority …

Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Using decisions of the appellate courts of California that have applied the federal harmless error rule to violations of Miranda v. Arizona and Escobedo v. Illinois, this Note will examine the logic and effects of the California application. However, the California experience can only be understood by first briefly describing the United States Supreme Court's decisions regarding harmless constitutional error and then showing the approaches taken by other states in their application of the harmless error rule to Miranda violations. Not only will this analysis put the California experience in its proper perspective, but it will also show the …

Searches Without Warrants, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

My primary area of concentration today is the search made without a warrant. Studies indicate that 95 percent or more of all searches are without warrants. It is quite understandable, then, that most of the search-and-seizure litigation concerns the validity of searches without warrants.

Custodial Police Interrogation In Our Nation's Capital: The Attempt To Implement Miranda, Richard J. Medalie, Leonard Zeitz, Paul Alexander

Michigan Law Review

In his attempt to define the meaning of democracy, Carl Becker, looking back to Plato's view of society, observed that "[a]ll human institutions, we are told, have their ideal forms laid away in heaven, and we do not need to be told that the actual institutions conform but indifferently to these ideal counterparts." Becker's observation may well set the perspective from which to view what occurred when the attempt was made in the District of Columbia to implement the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona.

Recent Developments In The Law Of Search And Seizure, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

This article is designed to provide a survey of recent decisions dealing with several important issues in the area of search and seizure. It is intended primarily as a basic collection of sources. I have, therefore, sought to keep my own commentary at a minimum and the citations to relevant cases at a maximum. Wherever space permits, I have let the courts speak for themselves. In most instances, however, it has been necessary to provide fairly general descriptions of the cases.

'Custodial Interrogation' Within The Meaning Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

The primary conceptual hurdle confronting the Miranda Court was the "legal reasoning" that any and all police interrogation is unaffected by the privilege against self-incrimination because such interrogation does not involve any kind of judicial process for the taking of testimony; inasmuch as police officers have no legal authority to compel statements of any kind, there is no legal obligation, ran the argument, to which a privilege can apply. See, e.g., the discussion and authorities collected in Kamisar, A Dissent from the Miranda Dissents: Some Comments on the "New" Fifth Amendment and the Old "Voluntariness" Test, 65 MICH. L. REv. …

Search By Consent, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

My topics this morning are eavesdropping, search by consent and entrance gained by fraud and deceit. You should be forewarned that these are areas in which the law has been "on the move" for the past few years. Changes have occurred and still more will take place in the future. I will attempt to anticipate some of those developments, but, obviously, the only safe course is keeping up-to-date through continuing education. In covering my assigned topics, I hope to paint with a rather broad brush. It has always been my feeling that the pohce officer cannot be expected to learn …

Police Interrogation And The Supreme Court--The Latest Round, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

My first task is to explain to some degree the nature of the problem embodied in our title. This book has been designated as "Escobedo-The Second Round." What we will be discussing is a series of cases, decided in June, 1966, the most noteworthy of which is Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)]. In these cases, the United States Supreme Court prescribed a new set of standards governing the introduction in evidence of statements obtained from the defendant through police interrogation. Actually, to a degree these standards were not entirely new. They had been suggested, at least in part, …

The Citizen On Trial: The New Confession Rules, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Commenting on why it has taken the United States so long to apply "the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel to the proceedings in the stationhouse as well as to those in the courtroom" - as the Supreme Court did in Miranda v. Arizona - this author notes that, "To a large extent this is so because here, as elsewhere, there has been a wide gap between the principles to which we aspire and the practices we actually employ."

The Investigation Of Corporate Monopolies, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently given a clear and brief statement of its views respecting the right of a corporation officer to refuse to testify on the ground that his testimony may subject the corporation to a criminal prosecution. Hale v. Henkel, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370. Hale was summoned before a grand jury in a proceeding under the Sherman anti-trust act, and upon being interrogated respecting certain transactions of the MacAndrews & Forbes Co., of which he was Secretary and Treasurer, refused to answer, on the ground that the Federal immunity law was not broad …