Law Commons^™

Constitutional Law: Search And Seizure—The Role Of Police Officer Good Faith In Substantive Fourth Amendment Doctrine—Michigan V. De Fillippo, 443, U.S. 31 (1979), Richard E. Gifford

Washington Law Review

This note challenges the Court's implicit assumption that a policeman's good faith reliance is relevant in determining whether the fourth amendment has been violated. That assumption is incompatible with precedent. Prior decisions suggest good faith reliance should not be considered until after the court has established that a violation occurred and applicability of the exclusionary rule is at issue. Without offering a coherent explanation for its departure from precedent, the DeFillippo Court casually added police good faith to the already complex body of substantive search and seizure law. Thus, the decision created yet another dimension of disquieting uncertainty in the …

Criminal Procedure—Luggage Found During A Lawful Warrantless Search Of An Automobile May Not Be Searched Without A Warrant—Arkansas V. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979), Suzanne Oliver

Washington Law Review

In Arkansas v. Sanders, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in the absence of exigent circumstances, police must obtain a warrant before searching luggage taken from an automobile lawfully stopped and searched for contraband. The majority opinion, written by Justice Powell, sharply restricts further extension of the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. The Court found the exception inapplicable for two reasons. First, a suitcase in the custody of police lacks the inherent mobility of an automobile. Second, there is a much greater expectation of privacy associated with luggage than is associated with a car. A …

New York V. Belton, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Steagald V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Robbins V. California, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Interrogation Without Questions: Rhode Island V. Innis And United States V. Henry, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Court defined "interrogation" within the meaning of Miranda; and in United States v. Henry, it defined "deliberate elicitation" within the meaning of Massiah. This article explores the implications of Innis and Henry, suggests readings of the new tests consistent with their purposes, and applies the tests to several situations where the scope of the fifth and sixth amendment protections remains unclear.

Pederson V. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1979), Margot Pequignot

Florida State University Law Review

Constitutional Law-SEARCH AND SEIZURE-HIGHWAY AGRICULTURAL INSPECTIONS AND FLA. STAT. § 570.15: AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE REASONABLENESS AND PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARDS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Police Use Of Cctv Surveillance: Constitutional Implications And Proposed Regulations, Gary C. Robb

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article evaluates the constitutionality of CCTV "searches." Part I discusses the present uses being made of closed circuit technology and evaluates the merits of the CCTV surveillance system. The critical policy trade-off is the system's effectiveness in combatting crime against the resulting loss of privacy to individual citizens.

Part II considers the constitutional implications of CCTV use in terms of three major doctrines: the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures"; the constitutional right of privacy; and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association. This part briefly summarizes the state of the law concerning these constitutional …

Property, Privacy, And Deterrence: The Exclusionary Rule In Search Of A Rationale, Steven R. Schlesinger, Bradford Wilson

Duquesne Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Criminal Procedure - Fourth Amendment - Search And Seizure - Electronic Surveillance - Pen Register, Michael P. Weinstein

Duquesne Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has held that the installation and use of a pen register device is not a fourth amendment search requiring judicial authorization.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).

The Jury As A Source Of Reasonable Search And Seizure Law, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

The definition of a reasonable search has bedeviled the United States Supreme Court for some ninety years. Formal logic or legal reasoning assists the Court in tracing premise to conclusion, but does not alone suggest the initial premise. The Court's difficulty in fourth amendment cases, in general, lies in identifying the premise-the fundamental value which is embodied in this constitutional guarantee. The Court has recognized that this fundamental value, whatever it is, has an origin outside the language of the amendment, and the Court has considered sources such as history, popular consensus, natural law, and utilitarian balancing to find this …

Pen Registers And Privacy: Risks, Expectations, And The Nullification Of Congressional Intent, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

In United States v. New York Telephone Co. the Supreme Court first ruled that an ordinary search warrant sufficed to authorize law enforcement use of a pen register. Additionally, the Court ruled that a federal district judge possessed the authority to include within the search warrant an order compelling a telephone company to assist the government by installing a pen register on the targeted telephone.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Court considered the legality of pen register surveillance conducted by a telephone company pursuant to an informal police request, that is, without a warrant or other court order. In holding …

Custodial Seizures And The Poison Tree Doctrine: Dunaway V. New York And Its Aftermath, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 733 (1980), Rosanne J. Faraci

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Visual Rape: A Look At The Dubious Legality Of Strip Searches, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 273 (1980), Paul R. Shuldiner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Courts - Civil Rights Action Under Section 1983 - Collateral Estoppel Does Not Bar Federal Litigation Under Section 1983 Of Search And Seizure Claims Following A State Court Decision Upholding Constitutionality Of The Search And Seizure, Linda M. Rohloff

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Law Office Search: An Emerging Problem And Some Suggested Solutions, Lackland H. Bloom Jr.

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A law office search threatens the attorney-client relationship by jeopardizing values protected by the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. After reviewing recent developments that underlie the sudden emergence of the law office search, Professor Bloom examines the nature of this threat and suggests that the values of the attorney-client relationship can be reconciled with the needs of law enforcement by requiring the police to use a subpoena rather than a search warrant when seeking documentary evidence from an attorney. Professor Bloom considers whether this "subpoena preference rule" either is required by the fourth amendment or can be implemented by nonconstitutional …

High On The Seas: Drug Smuggling, The Fourth Amendment, And Warrantless Searches At Sea, Daniel H. Foote

Articles

Today no statute prohibits the mere possession of marijuana or other controlled substances beyond the three-mile offshore territorial limit of the United States; but prosecutions relating to vessels carrying controlled substances outside the territorial waters may be based upon charges of conspiracy to import or distribute the substances. In attempting to halt the recent increase in smuggling of such contraband by sea, the United States Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies have aggressively exercised their powers to stop and search vessels. Two parallel statutory provisions, 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) and 19 U.S.C. § 158,(a), give the Coast Guard and …

Case Digest, Journal Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Definition of Seaman under the Jones Act Need Not be Restricted to Person Assigned to Only One Vessel

Fourth Amendment Does Not Bar Warrantless Fishing Vessel Searches Authorized by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 to Protect Fisheries in the Conservation Zone

Properly Extradited Fugitive Not Entitled to Judicial Hearing Challenging Enlargement of Original Warrant of Surrender

Visa Numbers Wrongfully Charged Against Western Hemisphere Quotas are Reissued According to an Historical Approach Rather than Chronological Order

Payment of Irrevocable Letter of Credit May Not be Enjoined on Grounds of Instability of Foreign Governments

Expropriation of a Contractual Right …

Constitutional Law - Fourth Amendment - Search And Seizure - Title Iii Of The Omnibus Crime Control And Safe Streets Act Of 1968 - Electronic Surveillance - Covert Entry, Gregory R. Lyons

Duquesne Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has held that the fourth amendment does not require that a Title III electronic surveillance order include a specific authorization for law enforcement officers to covertly enter the premises described in the order to install a listening device.

Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979)

Pen Registers After Smith V. Maryland, John S. Applegate, Amy Applegate

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Franks V. Delaware: A Proposed Interpretation And Application, Peter A. Alces

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: A Treatise On The Fourth Amendment, William H. Erickson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment by Wayne R. LaFave