Law Commons^™

Brief Of Professors Of Law, Us V. Bergdahl, Joshua E. Kastenberg, Rachel E. Vanlandingham, Geoffrey S. Corn

Faculty Scholarship

When scrutinizing executive actions for unlawful command influence, this Court must account for a president’s immense power over the military. The extant judicial test for unlawful command influence – a violation of due process in the military setting – is a contextual one, and hence must consider the unique and unparalleled authority of the Commander-In-Chief over the military and individual service-members when the president’s actions are at issue. This executive power should also be evaluated in light of its myriad, and historically important, constitutional and statutory constraints – some predating the birth of the United States – that appropriately continue …

Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

This is an essay on Professor Sarah A. Seo’s new book, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press 2019). I focus on Professor Seo’s analysis of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). Carroll is important not only because it was the Court’s first car case. Understanding Carroll (and Brinegar, which solidified and expanded Carroll’s holding) is essential because, nearly one hundred years later, its logic continues to direct how the modern Court resolves Fourth Amendment claims of motorists. Put simply, a majority of today’s …

Lawful Searches Incident To Unlawful Arrests: A Reform Proposal, Mark A. Summers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Textualism, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches” is one of the most storied constitutional commands Yet after decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, a coherent definition of the term “search” remains surprisingly elusive Even the justices know they have a problem Recent opinions only halfheartedly apply the controlling “reasonable expectation of privacy” test and its wildly unpopular cousin, “third-party doctrine,” with a few justices in open revolt.

These fissures hint at the Court’s openness to a new approach Unfortunately, no viable alternatives appear on the horizon The justices themselves offer little in the way of a replacement And scholars’ proposals exhibit …

To Knock Or Not To Knock? No-Knock Warrants And Confrontational Policing, Brian Dolan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note proceeds in three parts. Part I begins by explaining what no-knock warrants are and why they are used. Part I then addresses recent state legislative efforts to reform no-knock warrant use and argues that these efforts, however well-intentioned, are insufficient. Part I will also provide a brief history of how no-knock warrant use developed and gives an overview of the current status of state law regarding no-knock warrants. Part II argues that, contrary to the arguments of no-knock proponents, elimination of no-knock warrants and strict adherence to the knock-and-announce requirement is a more effective way to ensure …

A Warrant Requirement Resurgence? The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin J. Priester

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over many years, the United States Supreme Court has developed an extensive body of precedent interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agents conducting criminal investigations. Commonly called the “warrant requirement,” one key component of this case law operates to deem some police investigatory techniques to be unconstitutional unless they are conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued in advance by a judge. The terms of the doctrine and its exceptions also authorize other investigatory actions as constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. …

Standing To Challenge Familial Searches Of Commercial Dna Databases, Hillary L. Kody

William & Mary Law Review

In April 2018, police officers arrested Joseph James DeAngelo. DeAngelo, the officers claimed, was the “Golden State Killer,” a man who committed dozens of murders and over fifty sexual assaults in California in the 1970s and 1980s. The Golden State Killer had long eluded police, even though his DNA profile linked him to dozens of violent crimes. While law enforcement officials from several jurisdictions in California had collected his DNA from crime scenes, the Golden State Killer’s crimes predated modern DNA analysis. Police found little use for the profile without a suspect’s profile to compare to it.

Nearly forty years …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Positive Law Model Of The Fourth Amendment, William Baude, James Y. Stern

James Y. Stern

For fifty years, courts have used a “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard to define “searches” under the Fourth Amendment. As others have recognized, that doctrine is subjective, unpredictable, and conceptually confused, but viable alternatives have been slow to emerge. This Article supplies one.

We argue that Fourth Amendment protection should be anchored in background positive law. The touchstone of the search-and-seizure analysis should be whether government officials have done something forbidden to private parties. It is those actions that should be subjected to Fourth Amendment reasonableness review and the presumptive requirement to obtain a warrant. In short, Fourth Amendment protection …

Restrictions On Law Enforcement Investigation And Prosecution Of Crime, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

No abstract provided.

Does The Fourth Amendment Apply To The Armed Forces?, Fredric I. Lederer, Frederic L. Borch

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

The Right To Remain Armed, Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

The laws governing gun possession are changing rapidly. In the past two years, federal courts have wielded a revitalized Second Amendment to invalidate longstanding gun carrying restrictions in Chicago, the District of Columbia, and throughout California. Invoking similar Second Amendment themes, legislators across the country have steadily deregulated public gun carrying, preempting municipal gun control ordinances in cities like Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Cleveland.

These changes to substantive gun laws reverberate through the constitutional criminal procedure framework. By making it lawful for citizens to carry guns even in crowded urban areas, enhanced Second Amendment rights trigger Fourth Amendment protections that could …

The Inverse Relationship Between The Constitutionality And Effectiveness Of New York City "Stop And Frisk", Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

New York City sits at the epicenter of an extraordinary criminal justice phenomenon. While employing aggressive policing tactics, such as “stop and frisk,” on an unprecedented scale, the City dramatically reduced both violent crime and incarceration – with the connections between these developments (if any) hotly disputed. Further clouding the picture, in August 2013, a federal district court ruled the City’s heavy reliance on “stop and frisk” unconstitutional. Popular and academic commentary generally highlights isolated pieces of this complex story, constructing an incomplete vision of the lessons to be drawn from the New York experience. This Article brings together all …

Crime-Severity Distinctions And The Fourth Amendment: Reassessing Reasonableness In A Changing World, Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

A growing body of commentary calls for the Supreme Court to recalibrate its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in response to technological and social changes that threaten the traditional balance between public safety and personal liberty. This Article joins the discussion, highlighting a largely overlooked consideration that should be included in any modernization of Fourth Amendment doctrine—crime severity.

The Supreme Court emphasizes that “reasonableness” is the “touchstone” of Fourth Amendment analysis. Yet, in evaluating contested searches and seizures, current Fourth Amendment doctrine ignores a key determinant of reasonableness, the crime under investigation. As a result, an invasive search of a suspected murderer …

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

Peter A. Alces

No abstract provided.

The Iphone Meets The Fourth Amendment, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

Under the search incident to arrest doctrine, police may search the entire body and immediate grabbing space of an arrestee, including the contents of all containers, without any probable cause. Because almost all traffic infractions are arrestable offenses, police have enormous opportunity to conduct such searches incident to arrest. In the near future, these already high-stakes searches will become even more important because millions of drivers will not only possess containers that hold a few scattered papers, such as wallets or briefcases, but also iPhones—capable of holding tens of thousands of pages of personal information. If current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence …

Why Arizona V. Gant Is The Wrong Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

Wina Morning News With Rick And Jane: Interview With Adam Gershowitz, Rick Daniels, Jane Foy, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols And Particularity In Cell Phone Searches, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

Last year, in Riley v. California, the Supreme Court required police to procure a warrant before searching a cell phone. Unfortunately, the Court’s assumption that requiring search warrants would be “simple” and very protective of privacy was overly optimistic. This article reviews lower court decisions in the year since Riley and finds that the search warrant requirement is far less protective than expected. Rather than restricting search warrants to the narrow evidence being sought, some magistrates have issued expansive warrants authorizing a search of the entire contents of the phone with no restrictions whatsoever. Other courts have authorized searches …

Searching Cell Phones Incident To Arrest: Can Courts And Legislatures Impose Limits On A Bright Line Rule?, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

Texting While Driving Meets The Fourth Amendment: Deterring Both Texting And Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

Recent laws criminalizing texting while driving are under-inclusive, ambiguous, and impose light punishments that are unlikely to deter. At the same time, the laws empower police to conduct warrantless searches of drivers’ cell phones. Texting while driving is dangerous and should be punished with stiff fines, possible jail time, license suspensions, and interlock devices that prevent use of phones while driving. However, more severe punishment will not eliminate police authority to conduct warrantless cell phone searches. This Article therefore proposes that legislatures allow drivers to immediately confess to texting while driving in exchange for avoiding a search of their phones. …

Seizing A Cell Phone Incident To Arrest: Data Extraction Devices, Faraday Bags, Or Aluminum Foil As A Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

Symposium: Surprising Unanimity, Even More Surprising Clarity, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

David Leon Riley V. State Of California And United States Of America V. Brima Wurie: Brief Of Amici Curiae Criminal Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner Riley And Respondent Wurie, Adam M. Gershowitz, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Tara A. Brennan

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

Court Issues Sweeping Digital Privacy Ruling In Mass. Cell Phone Case, Anthony Brooks, Meghna Chakrabarti, Matthew Segal, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

Can A Password Stop Police From Searching Your Cell Phone Incident To Arrest?, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

"23 And Plea": Limiting Police Use Of Genealogy Sites After Carpenter V. United States, Antony Barone Kolenc

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illegal Predicate Searches And Tainted Warrants After Heien And Strieff, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

A long-standing debate has surrounded the relationship between two features of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule - the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine and the good-faith exception - in cases where the evidence used to secure a search warrant was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Some judges and scholars maintain that the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine takes precedence in such "tainted warrant" cases, leading to the suppression of any evidence seized in executing the warrant unless the warrant was supported by probable cause independent of the illegal predicate search. By contrast, others believe that …

Heien'S Mistake Of Law, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

The Supreme Court has been whittling away at the Fourth Amendment for decades. The Court's 2014 ruling in Heien v. North Carolina allowing the police to make a traffic stop based on a reasonable mistake of law generated little controversy among the Justices and escaped largely unnoticed by the press-perhaps because yet another Supreme Court decision reading the Fourth Amendment narrowly is not especially noteworthy or because the opinion's cursory and overly simplistic analysis equating law enforcement's reasonable mistakes of fact and law minimized the significance of the Court's decision. But the temptation to dismiss Heien as just another small …

The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr

Orin Kerr

In the Supreme Court's recent decision on GPS surveillance, United States v. Jones, five justices authored or joined concurring opinions that applied a new approach to interpreting Fourth Amendment protection. Before Jones, Fourth Amendment decisions had always evaluated each step of an investigation individually. Jones introduced what we might call a "mosaic theory" of the Fourth Amendment, by which courts evaluate a collective sequence of government activity as an aggregated whole to consider whether the sequence amounts to a search. This Article considers the implications of a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the choices and puzzles that …