Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Bill of Rights (5)
- Birth control (5)
- Contraceptive (5)
- Griswold v. Connecticut (5)
- Marital privacy (5)
-
- Marriage (5)
- Ninth Amendment (5)
- Substantive due process (5)
- Equal Protection Clause (4)
- Morality (4)
- 4th amendment (2)
- Fourth amendment (2)
- Mapp v. Ohio (2)
- Administrative summons (1)
- Burdeau v. McDowell (1)
- Collusion (1)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1)
- Comstockian (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fraud (1)
- Internal Revenue Code (1)
- Majoritarianism (1)
- Parole (1)
- Parole officers (1)
- People v. McComb (1)
- People v. Reeves (1)
- Poe v. Ullman (1)
- Record (1)
- Ryan v. United States (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Law--Prospective Limitation Of Mapp V. Ohio, Menis Elbert Ketchum Ii
Constitutional Law--Prospective Limitation Of Mapp V. Ohio, Menis Elbert Ketchum Ii
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Griswold Penumbra: Constitutional Charter For An Expanded Law Of Privacy?, Robert G. Dixon Jr.
The Griswold Penumbra: Constitutional Charter For An Expanded Law Of Privacy?, Robert G. Dixon Jr.
Michigan Law Review
The comments that follow are divided into a brief review, for purposes of perspective, of the elusive nature of "privacy" as developed in American law to date, and an attempted rigorous analysis of the privacy aspects of Griswold. A final section suggests that effectuation of the new constitutional right of marital privacy necessarily or derivatively implies a corollary right of access to birth control information and devices-a right which should have been more clearly articulated by the Court.
Nine Justices In Search Of A Doctrine, Thomas I. Emerson
Nine Justices In Search Of A Doctrine, Thomas I. Emerson
Michigan Law Review
To the ordinary layman, Griswold v. Connecticut seemed easy. But to the lawyer it was somewhat more difficult. The lawyer's problem with the case was that the issues did not readily fit into any existing legal pigeonhole. Actually, there were five possibilities. The case could have been dealt with under the equal protection clause, the first amendment, substantive due process, the right of privacy, or, in extremis, the ninth amendment. In order to strike down the statute under any of these doctrines, however, the Court would be forced to enter uncharted waters. Whatever course the Court took, its action …
Penumbras, Peripheries, Emanations, Things Fundamental And Things Forgotten: The Griswold Case, Paul G. Kauper
Penumbras, Peripheries, Emanations, Things Fundamental And Things Forgotten: The Griswold Case, Paul G. Kauper
Michigan Law Review
The varying theories followed in the several opinions in the Griswold case can be fully understood and appreciated only in the context of the tortuous but fascinating history of the judicial interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.
The Right Of Privacy: Emanations And Intimations, Robert B. Mckay
The Right Of Privacy: Emanations And Intimations, Robert B. Mckay
Michigan Law Review
When Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote in 1890 of "The Right to Privacy," they sought a means of protecting against unwelcome newspaper attention to social activities in the Warren household. Addressing their argument to the private law of torts, they presumably did not anticipate constitutional protection for other rights under the claim of privacy. Nevertheless, seventy· five years later that concept, now called the "right of privacy," was used by the Supreme Court of the United States in Griswold v. Connecticut to describe a constitutional right. Some members of the Court said the new right was within the "penumbra" …
Privacy In Connecticut, Arthur E. Sutherland
Privacy In Connecticut, Arthur E. Sutherland
Michigan Law Review
Occasionally a judgment of our Supreme Court, delivered in a superficially petty case, suddenly before our startled eyes displays fundamentals of our constitutional theory. Thus, in Griswold v. Connecticut, holding unconstitutional an 1879 Connecticut statute forbidding all persons to use contraceptive devices, the Court found it necessary to discover a "right of privacy" latent in the Bill of Rights and incorporated into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The outcome of the case is satisfying; all nine Justices joined in saying, in one way or another, that Connecticut's statute was nonsense. I am happy to see this …
Evidence Illegally Seized By Private Persons Excluded From Criminal Prosecution--People V. Mccomb, Michigan Law Review
Evidence Illegally Seized By Private Persons Excluded From Criminal Prosecution--People V. Mccomb, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
At common law, illegally seized evidence was admissible on the theory that the nature of the seizure did not necessarily affect the probative value of the evidence. However, in 1914 the United States Supreme Court, in order to protect the fourth amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, adopted a rule excluding from federal courts evidence illegally seized by federal officials. In 1961, the scope of this rule was extended by Mapp v. Ohio, which held that all evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in state courts. However, the Mapp doctrine applies only …
Criminal Procedure—Inclusion Of Briefcase In "Frisk" Does Not Create A Constitutionally Protected Search, David Brown
Criminal Procedure—Inclusion Of Briefcase In "Frisk" Does Not Create A Constitutionally Protected Search, David Brown
Buffalo Law Review
People v. Pugach, 15 N.Y.2d 65, 204 N.E.2d 176, 255 N.Y.S.2d 833 (1964).
Commissioner May Examine Taxpayer's Records For Years Barred By Statute Of Limitations Without Proving Reasonable Suspicion Of Fraud--United States V. Powell, Michigan Law Review
Commissioner May Examine Taxpayer's Records For Years Barred By Statute Of Limitations Without Proving Reasonable Suspicion Of Fraud--United States V. Powell, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has power to summon witnesses and to examine records in order to ascertain the correctness of a taxpayer's return. If a summons is not obeyed or if the records sought are not produced, the Commissioner may seek enforcement by applying to the proper federal district court. Although the Commissioner's investigative powers are broad, they are not unlimited. In the absence of fraud, he must act within the confines of a three-year statute of limitations. In addition, the Code makes it abundantly clear that taxpayers may not be subjected to unnecessary examinations or investigations and that …
The Gouled Rule: Current Utility, Ronald H. Heck
The Gouled Rule: Current Utility, Ronald H. Heck
Duquesne Law Review
Within the literal statement of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, no reference is made as to what type of material is lawfully subject to search and seizure. In fact, the amendment gives the impression that anything is the lawful subject of seizure so long as the place to be searched "and the persons or things to be seized" are "particularly described." However, the Supreme Court has not so interpreted this amendment. Their interpretation of the amendment limits the type of articles subject to seizure. This limitation is known as the Gouled Rule. The discussion which follows deals …
Seizure Of Private Papers Pursuant To A Search Warrant: With Specific Application To Federal And California Bookmaking Prosecutions, Dennis G. Adams
Seizure Of Private Papers Pursuant To A Search Warrant: With Specific Application To Federal And California Bookmaking Prosecutions, Dennis G. Adams
San Diego Law Review
The federal exclusionary rule excludes evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Mapp v. Ohio and Malloy v. Hogan, have made the federal exclusionary rule and the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applicable to the states. Because this type of evidence usually forms the basis of bookmaking convictions, this article discusses whether such evidence can still be constitutionally seized in California. The author concludes that these Supreme Court cases have rendered California Penal Code § 1524, governing property validly seizable under a search warrant, unconstitutional.
Parolee Not Protected Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures By His Parole Officer, Roger B. Dworkin
Parolee Not Protected Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures By His Parole Officer, Roger B. Dworkin
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Searches And Seizures - Information Supplied By An Anonymous Informer Must Be Corroborated By Establishing That The Law Is Being Violated To Constitute A Basis For Probable Cause To Search Or Arrest Without'a Warrant: Verification Of Other Information Is Insufficient Corroboration. People V. Reeves (Cal. 1964), Armando L. Odorico
San Diego Law Review
This recent case discusses People v. Reeves (Cal. 1964)