Law Commons^™

Indefinite Material Witness Detention Without Probable Cause: Thinking Outside The Fourth Amendment, Michael Greenberger

Michael Greenberger

A constitutional issue recently addressed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2003), has not received the widespread attention of high-profile litigation concerning the Justice Department's other controversial counter-terrorism policies. It is equally important. The issue arises out of Attorney General Ashcroft's announcement shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that the aggressive detention of material witnesses [was] vital to preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks. Since that time, the Department of Justice has used the federal material witness statute (18 U.S.C. Section 3144) to arrest …

The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part …

Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule, which bars from admission evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, is a bedrock of American law. It is highly controversial, but there seems to be no equally effective way to protect citizens' rights. This paper proposes that an admissibility standard be adopted that is in keeping with virtually every jurisdiction around the world other than the United States. Thus, before ruling evidence inadmissible, the court would consider the level of the constitutional violation, the seriousness of the crime, whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the …

The Irrelevancy Of The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Thomas K. Clancy

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Since John Roberts Jr. became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, there has been a measurable decline in the number of cases addressing Fourth Amendment questions. This article examines the reasons for that decline and predicts the substantial elimination of Fourth Amendment litigation in the Roberts Court. The prediction is based on several premises, including the lack of interest of the Justices on the Court concerning search and seizures principles and two significant recent cases, Pearson v. Callahan and United States v. Herring, which presage a significant decline in the number of lower court cases addressing the merits of …

Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule is back under the judicial magnifying glass. Recent opinions, most notably by Justice Scalia, have sparked speculation that the Roberts Court is inclined to overrule Mapp v. Ohio and send Fourth Amendment disputes back to the realm of civil suits and police disciplinary actions. As the Court's rulings have made clear, any reevaluation of the exclusionary rule's future will be conducted under the now familiar rubric of whether the rule's "benefit" of deterring police misbehavior outweighs the "cost" of lost evidence and convictions.

This essay argues that if any such reevaluation does occur, the Court must take …

Fourth Amendment Federalism And The Silencing Of The American Poor, Andrew E. Taslitz

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In Virginia v. Moore, police officers searched Moore incident to an arrest for a minor traffic infraction for which Virginia statutory law in fact prohibited arrest. The officers found cocaine on Moore's person, arresting him for that crime too. The United States Supreme Court ultimately found that the arrest for the traffic infraction and the subsequent search were valid under the federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Central to the Court's reasoning was its insistence that the state statute was irrelevant. Any contrary conclusion, explained the Court, would wrongly make the Fourth Amendment's meaning vary from place to place. Professor Taslitz …

The Single-Purpose Container Exception: A Logical Extension Of The Plain View Doctrine Made Unworkable, Daniel Kegl

Northern Illinois University Law Review

This Comment examines the single-purpose container exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Since the exception was recognized in Arkansas v. Sanders and revisited in Robbins v. California, the federal circuits have not agreed as to what evidence courts can consider when deciding whether or not to apply the exception to a particular container. While some circuits allow specialized police knowledge and the circumstances surrounding the container's discovery to be considered, most disallow this evidence in making the same determination. As a result, the continued use of the single-purpose container exception results in an inconsistent application of the Fourth Amendment …

Contingent Constitutionalism: State And Local Criminal Laws And The Applicability Of Federal Constitutional Rights, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Americans have long been bound by a shared sense of constitutional commonality, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned the notion that federal constitutional rights should be allowed to depend on distinct state and local legal norms. In reality, however, federal rights do indeed vary, and they do so as a result of their contingent relationship to the diversity of state and local laws on which they rely. Focusing on criminal procedure rights in particular, this Article examines the benefits and detriments of constitutional contingency, and casts in new light many enduring understandings of American constitutionalism, including the effects of …

Reasonableness As A Rule: A Paean To Justice O'Connor's Dissent In Atwater V. City Of Lago Vista, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

This paper, part of a symposium dedicated to “great” Fourth Amendment dissents, examines Justice Sandra Day O’Connor's dissent in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001), where by a 5-4 vote the Court upheld the constitutionality of warrantless police arrests for non-breach of the peace, fine-only offenses. In addition to rightfully condemning the majority's decision to equate probable cause with constitutional reasonableness, in principle, Justice O’Connor presciently recognized the numerous liberty and privacy-restricting consequences of the outcome for the “everyday lives of Americans.” Atwater, combined with decisions issued before and after it, including Whren v. United States, Devenpeck …

"Knock And Talk" And The Fourth Amendment, Craig M. Bradley

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Deed Of Mistrust?: The Use Of Land Transfers To Evade The Establishment Clause, David C. Peet

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stranger Than Dictum: Why Arizona V. Gant Compels The Conclusion That Suspicionless Buie Searches Incident To Lawful Arrests Are Unconstitutional, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

In its 1990 opinion in Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court held that as an incident to a lawful (home) arrest, officers can “as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” While this holding was actually dictum, thereafter courts categorically concluded that Buie authorizes suspicionless searches of sufficiently large spaces not only in arrest rooms, but also in rooms immediately abutting arrest rooms and connected to arrest rooms by hallways. Buie was one of three Supreme Court …

Classification And Fair Treatment: An Essay On The Moral And Legal Permissibility Of Profiling, Deborah Hellman

Deborah Hellman

Prior to the events of September 11, 2001, there appeared to be a consensus that profiling was both legally prohibited and morally wrong. Since 9/11, that consensus has eroded. In order to determine whether the fear and uncertainty occasioned by current events have simply clouded our judgment or whether, instead, the earlier rejection of profiling was too facile, we need to better understand precisely what we mean by "profiling." More importantly, we must develop a theory that explains when profiling, so defined, violates constitutional norms. This paper takes up that task. The paper uses the term "profiling" to mean any …

Warrantless Arrests In Police Standoffs: A Common Sense Approach To The Exigency Exception, Elizabeth E. Forbes

Law Student Publications

In the discussion that follows, I argue that exigency in police standoff situations should be governed by the clearer, more common sense rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit - namely that exigency exists due to the inherent danger of a police standoff, and is not negated by the mere passage of time. Part I provides a backdrop for the discussion, presenting an overview of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on exigency cases. Part II discusses the differing Sixth Circuit and Ninth Circuit approaches to exigency in police standoffs. Part III argues that the better position on exigency in police standoff situations …

Criminal Law—No Right To Revoke And Avoid Search-Ninth Circuit Rules That Consent To Airport Screening Cannot Be Revoked In An Administrative Search. United States V. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007)., Bethany A. Gulley

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Effects, Thirty Years In Hindsight, Of Eliminating The Concept Of Fourth Amendment “Standing”, Robert H. Whorf

robert h whorf

Abstract – The Effects, Thirty Years in Hindsight, of Eliminating the Concept of Fourth Amendment Standing Copyright 2009 Robert H. Whorf This article presents a novel look at Fourth Amendment “standing” doctrine. It considers a case that has perplexed courts for three decades – Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978). The article chronicles an amazing variety of responses from lower courts in the years following issuance of the decision. Those responses indicate that courts were considerably confused about whether Rakas actually eliminated the concept of 4th Amendment standing by collapsing it into the threshold merits inquiry, or whether Rakas …

Step Out Of The Car: License, Registration, And Dna Please, Brian Gallini

School of Law Faculty Publications and Presentations

No Arkansas appellate court has examined the constitutionality of the recently enacted House Bill 1473 – better known as “Juli’s Law” – which allows officers to take DNA samples from suspects arrested for capital murder, murder in the first degree, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, and sexual assault in the second degree. This Essay contends that Juli’s Law violates the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution. Part I highlights certain features of the statute and explores the rationale underlying its enactment. Part II discusses the only published decision upholding the practice of taking of DNA samples from certain …

Driving Through Arkansas? Have Your Dna Sample Ready, Brian Gallini

School of Law Faculty Publications and Presentations

No Arkansas appellate court has examined the constitutionality of the recently enacted House Bill 1473 – better known as “Juli’s Law” – which allows officers to take DNA samples from suspects arrested for capital murder, murder in the first degree, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, and sexual assault in the second degree. This brief essay contends that Juli’s Law violates the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.

“The U. S. Supreme Court Gets It Right In Arizona V. Gant: Justifications For Rules Protect Constitutional Rights”, Shenequa L. Grey

Shenequa L. Grey

In Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), the United States Supreme Court recently revisited the search of an arrestee’s vehicle pursuant to the “search incident to a lawful arrest” exception to the warrant requirement. The Court held that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if: (1) the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search; or (2) if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. This decision resolved long debated issues regarding the applicability of this exception as it …

Diminishing Probable Cause And Minimalist Searches, Kit Kinports

Journal Articles

This paper comments on recent Supreme Court opinions that have used phrases such as "reasonable belief" and "reason to believe" when analyzing intrusions that generally require proof of probable cause. Historically, the Court used these terms as shorthand references for both probable cause and reasonable suspicion. While this lack of precision was unobjectionable when the concepts were interchangeable, that has not been true since Terry v. Ohio created a distinction between the two standards. When the Justices then resurrect these terms without situating them in the dichotomy between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, it is not clear whether they are …

Safford Unified School District No. 1 V. Redding, And The Future Of School Strip Searches, Lewis R. Katz

Faculty Publications

Each year in America an unknown number of children in primary and secondary schools are strip searched by teachers and/or school administrators, forced to remove pants and shirts down to their underwear and sometimes forced to expose their breasts and genitals. In Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S.Ct. 2633 (29), the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue, finding that school officials violated the child’s Fourth Amendment rights during a strip search but reversing the Ninth Circuit and awarding the school officials qualified immunity not withstanding the ineptitude of the investigation. The Court purported to apply …

The Language Of Consent In Police Encounters, Janice Nadler, J.D. Trout

Faculty Working Papers

In this chapter, we examine the nature of conversations in citizen-police encounters in which police seek to conduct a search based on the citizen's consent. We argue that when police officers ask a person if they can search, citizens often feel enormous pressure to say yes. But judges routinely ignore these pressures, choosing instead to spotlight the politeness and restraint of the officers' language and demeanor. Courts often analyze the language of police encounters as if the conversation has an obvious, context-free meaning. The pragmatic features of language influence behavior, but courts routinely ignore or deny this fact. Instead, current …

"The Right Of The People": The Nsa, The Fisa Amendments Act Of 2008, And Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Of Americans Overseas, Jonathan D. Forgang

Fordham Law Review

In October 2008, two former National Security Agency communications analysts told reporters that the NSA used satellite technology to monitor the phone conversations of Americans living in the Middle East. This revelation highlighted an unresolved area of surveillance law—the privacy rights of U.S. citizens against their own government when they are outside the borders of the United States. Though the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 has created a procedure for the judicial review of this type of surveillance, this review is only a general oversight and judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are not required to individually review every …

Whose Eyes Are You Going To Believe? Scott V. Harris And The Perils Of Cognitive Illiberalism, Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk …

Unreasonable: Involuntary Medications, Incompetent Criminal Defendants, And The Fourth Amendment, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

Involuntary medical treatment potentially compromises several individual constitutional interests. However, like all individual constitutional rights, rights under both the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment can be outweighed by sufficiently important governmental interests.

To determine whether involuntary medical treatment violates the Due Process Clause, courts ask whether the government’s interest that the treatment advances is important enough to justify compromising the individual’s interest in making an autonomous decision to refuse medical treatment. Involuntary treatment must also be medically appropriate, but any physical harms that the treatment might cause are not balanced directly against the government’s interest.

When the government …

Protections For Electronic Communications: The Stored Communications Act And The Fourth Amendment, Alexander Scolnik

Fordham Law Review

As e-mail and other forms of electronic communications began becoming widely used, Congress recognized the need to protect these new forms of communication from impermissible intrusion. Unsure whether the flexible approach to determining the extent of Fourth Amendment protections as announced in Katz v. United States would extend to electronic communications, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to ensure a baseline level of protection. This Note argues that the Fourth Amendment does extend to electronic communications and, therefore, the provisions of the ECPA that allow the government to access certain electronic communications without a search warrant are unconstitutional.

Whose Eyes Are You Going To Believe? Scott V. Harris And The Perils Of Cognitive Illiberalism, Donald Braman, Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to …

The Fourth Amendment's New Frontier: Judicial Reasoning Applying The Fourth Amendment To Electronic Communications, Amanda Yellon

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Islam’S Fourth Amendment: Search And Seizure In Islamic Doctrine And Muslim Practice, Sadiq Reza

Faculty Scholarship

Modern scholars regularly assert that Islamic law contains privacy protections similar to those of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Two Quranic verses in particular - one that commands Muslims not to enter homes without permission, and one that commands them not to 'spy' - are held up, along with reports from the Traditions (Sunna) that repeat and embellish on these commands, as establishing rules that forbid warrantless searches and seizures by state actors and require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of these rules. This Article tests these assertions by: (1) presenting rules and doctrines Muslim jurists …

Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.