Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Utah V. Strieff: The Gratuitous Expansion Of The Attenuation Doctrine, Courtney Watkins

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Mass Suppression: Aggregation And The Fourth Amendment, Nirej Sekhon

Georgia Law Review

The FourthAmendment's exclusionary rule requires that
criminal courts suppress evidence obtained as a result of
an unconstitutionalsearch or seizure. The Supreme Court
has repeatedly stated that suppression is purely
regulatory, not remedial. Its only purpose is to deter
future police misconduct, not to remedy past privacy or
liberty harms suffered by the defendant. Exclusion, in
other words, is for the benefit of community members who
might, sometime in the future, be subject to police
misconduct like that endured by the defendant.
Exclusion's regulatory purpose would be greatly aided if
criminal courts could identify when a suppression motion
involved Fourth Amendment …

Go to article

Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In at least two recent cases, courts have rejected service providers' capacity to raise Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their customers. These holdings rely on longstanding Supreme Court doctrine establishing a general rule against third parties asserting the Fourth Amendment rights of others. However, there is a key difference between these two recent cases and those cases on which the doctrine rests. The relevant Supreme Court doctrine stems from situations in which someone could take action to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, even if the particular thirdparty litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …