Law Commons^™

Expanding The Sixth Amendment’S Right To Counsel To Ensure Fairness For Noncitizen Defendants, Kathy Santamaria Mendez

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

The Harmful Effects Of Expansive Immunity Protections For Child Abuse Reporters And The Lack Of Justice For Those Who Are Falsely Accused, Kristina Joslin

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Not An Ocean Away, Only A Moment Away: A Prosecutor's Primer For Obtaining Remotely Stored Data, Robert J. Peters, Alicia D. Loy, Matthew Osteen, Joseph Remy, Justin Fitzsimmons

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Purpose Paradox: A Linguistic Dilemma Within Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Luke Belflower

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Criminal Continues To Go Free When The Constable Blunders: Testing The Boundaries Of Curtilage—State V. Chute, 908 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 2018), Akina Khan

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Raising The Cost Of Using Title Iii Wiretap Evidence, Derik T. Fettig

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Licensed To Kill? An Analysis Of The Standard For Assessing Law Enforcement's Criminal Liability For Use Of Deadlly Force, Raoul Shah

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Blood On Their Hands: What Minnesota Authorities Can Do With Broad Warrants For Blood Draw Testing—State V. Fawcett, Matthew Porter

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

More Like Blood: State V. Thompson, Joshua L. Weichsel

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law: Hey, That's My Trash! Warrantless Searches Of Garbage Under The Minnesota Constitution—State V. Mcmurray, Lauren M. Hoglund

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

School Children And Parolees: Not So Special Anymore, Edwin Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment special needs exception may be one of the Court’s most puzzling doctrines. Since its origin, the Court has struggled to define its limits and its place in the Court’s suspicionless search and seizure jurisprudence. At times the Court has suggested that the exception is the only route to upholding a search or seizure in the absence of individualized suspicion, while at other times it has stated that it is just one of a limited number of exceptions to the requirement of individualized suspicion. Historically, while the application of the special needs exception has been unpredictable, one thing …

The Case For Stewart Over Harlan On 24/7 Physical Surveillance, Afsheen John Radsan

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explains why the government’s physical surveillance can reach a point in terms of duration and intensity that it becomes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. As references, Katz v. United States and Kyllo v. United States stand out from the canon. Katz, decided in 1967, swept away a prior emphasis on property rights and trespass laws to hold that the electronic monitoring of a phone booth was a search. Since then, the two-part test from Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion has received as much attention as the totality-of-the-circumstances test in Justice Stewart’s majority opinion. Kyllo, decided just months before …

A Suspicionless Search And Seizure Quagmire: The Supreme Court Revives The Pretext Doctrine And Creates Another Fine Fourth Amendment Mess, Edwin J. Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article contends the Supreme Court's use of a primary purpose test to regulate suspicionless searches and seizures by the government is misguided and will provide little or no protection against the evils that apparently led the Court to strike down recent schemes by government officials. The evil of the government schemes is less the purpose of the schemes than their expansion into areas and activities in which citizens should be protected from government intrusion in the absence of any suspicion of wrongdoing. Rather than facing this head on and carefully assessing whether the government schemes infringe on such areas …

Bright Line Breaking Point: Embracing Justice Scalia’S Call For The Supreme Court To Abandon An Unreasonable Approach To Fourth Amendment Search And Seizure Law, Edwin Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

In Thornton v. United States, the United States Supreme Court applied the bright-line rule of New York v. Belton to uphold the search of containers in the passenger compartment of a car when the arresting officer made initial contact with the suspect alter the suspect had parked his car and started walking away. Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment but criticized the majority for relying on the bright-line rule of Belton to uphold the search, stating that the Court’s effort to apply the Belton rule stretched that doctrine "beyond its breaking point."

Justice Scalia found the search in Thornton lawful …

Be My Guest: The Hidden Holding Of Minnesota V. Carter, Edwin J. Butterfoss, Mary Sue B. Snyder

Faculty Scholarship

This Article first examines the Carter case in detail, including the opinions of the state courts and the briefs and oral argument in the United States Supreme Court, before turning to the Court's decision. The Article highlights the importance of Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion and explains the "hidden holding" of the case, raising the question of whether lowercourts will apply the correct rule from the case. The Article argues that the Court's denial of the defendants' claim of a reasonable expectation of privacy, combined with its failure to provide guidance as to when non-overnight visitors in homes will have the …

Solving The Pretext Puzzle: The Importance Of Ulterior Motives And Fabrications In The Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment Pretext Doctrine, Edwin J. Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article first analyzes the debate between Professors John M. Burkoff and James B. Haddad over the current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the pretext issue. It shows that the Supreme Court's definition of pretext is broader than the definition of pretext used by these commentators. The Supreme Court's definition includes both "legal" and fabricated pretexts. In a "legal" pretext, the government offers a justification that is not the true reason for the police activity, but that, if the motivation of the officer is not considered, legally justifies the activity. In a fabricated pretext, the government offers a justification …

Bright Line Seizures: The Need For Clarity In Determining When Fourth Amendment Activity Begins, Edwin J. Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article proposes that the Mendenhall-Royer standard, as presently interpreted, should be discarded because it is unworkable and fails to strike the appropriate balance between the liberty interests of citizens and the interest of the state in combatting crime. The test is unworkable because the outcomes of cases turn on subtle factual distinctions unrelated to an individual's actual freedom to end an encounter with a police officer, making it difficult for police officers to apply the standard in the field and adjust their conduct accordingly. Moreover, the standard provides insufficient protection for an individual's rights by failing to consider the …