Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Personal In City Of Los Angeles V. Patel, Brian L. Owsley
Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Personal In City Of Los Angeles V. Patel, Brian L. Owsley
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Recently, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel striking down a city ordinance that required hotel and motel owners to make their guest registries available to police officers whenever requested to do so. Although the Court’s opinion in Patel simply affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the ordinance was unconstitutional, the Court could have used Patel to readdress the third-party doctrine, which establishes that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Patel provided a vehicle for the Court to do so, particularly because …
The Tools Of Political Dissent: A First Amendment Guide To Gun Registries, Thomas E. Kadri
The Tools Of Political Dissent: A First Amendment Guide To Gun Registries, Thomas E. Kadri
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
On December 23, 2012, a newspaper in upstate New York published a provocative map. On it appeared the names and addresses of thousands of gun owners in nearby counties, all precisely pinpointed for the world to browse. The source of this information: publicly available data drawn from the state’s gun registry. Legislators were quick to respond. Within a month, a new law offered gun owners the chance to permanently remove their identities from the registry with a simple call to their county clerk. The map raised interesting questions about broadcasting personal information, but a more fundamental question remains: Are these …
How United States V. Jones Can Restore Our Faith In The Fourth Amendment, Erica Goldberg
How United States V. Jones Can Restore Our Faith In The Fourth Amendment, Erica Goldberg
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
United States v. Jones, issued in January of this year, is a landmark case that has the potential to restore a property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to prominence. In 1967, the Supreme Court abandoned its previous Fourth Amendment framework, which had viewed the prohibition on unreasonable searches in light of property and trespass laws, and replaced it with a rule protecting the public’s reasonable expectations of privacy. Although the Court may have intended this reasonable expectations test to provide more protection than a test rooted in property law, the new test in fact made the Justices’ subjective views about …
Constitutional Etiquette And The Fate Of "Supreme Court Tv", Bruce Peabody
Constitutional Etiquette And The Fate Of "Supreme Court Tv", Bruce Peabody
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In traditional media outlets, on the Internet, and throughout the halls of Congress, debate about whether the Supreme Court should be required to televise its public proceedings is becoming more audible and focused. To date, these discussions have included such topics as the potential effects of broadcasting the Court, the constitutionality of Senator Arlen Specter’s current congressional initiative, S. 344, and how the public would use or abuse televised sessions of our highest tribunal.
The Right Legislation For The Wrong Reasons, Tony Mauro
The Right Legislation For The Wrong Reasons, Tony Mauro
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Senator Arlen Specter took a bold and long-overdue step on January 22, 2007, when he introduced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of its proceedings. But instead of making his case with a straightforward appeal to the public’s right to know, Specter has introduced arguments in favor of his bill that seem destined to antagonize the Court, drive it into the shadows, or both. Chances of passage might improve if Specter adjusts his tactics.
Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox
Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Cameras are an understandable yet inapt target for Supreme Court Justices apprehensive about televising the high Court’s proceedings. Notwithstanding Justice Souter’s declaration to a congressional subcommittee in 1996 that cameras will have to roll over his dead body to enter the Court, the Justices’ public statements suggest that their objections are to televising—not to cameras. In fact, welcoming cameras to video record Court proceedings for archival purposes will serve the Justices’ interests well. Video recording can forestall legislation recently introduced in both houses of Congress that would require the Court to televise its proceedings. The Court’s desired result—the legislation disappearing …