Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Arizona V. Gant: Decoding The Meaning Of Reasonable Belief, Geoffrey S. Corn
Arizona V. Gant: Decoding The Meaning Of Reasonable Belief, Geoffrey S. Corn
Geoffrey S. Corn
This article addresses the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant as to when police may search an automobile after the recent arrestee is secured and no longer able to access the vehicle. In Gant, the Court authorized such a search whenever the police have ‘reasonable belief’ evidence related to the crime of arrest may be in the automobile. However, the Court did not define the meaning of reasonable belief. This has led to various lower court interpretations, ranging from reasonable suspicion to probable cuase.
This article first explains why treating reasonable belief as synonymous with …
The Missing Miranda Warning: Why What You Don’T Know Really Can Hurt You, Geoffrey S. Corn
The Missing Miranda Warning: Why What You Don’T Know Really Can Hurt You, Geoffrey S. Corn
Geoffrey S. Corn
Abstract
The Missing Miranda Warning: Why What You Don’t Know Really Can Hurt You
Miranda – at least the core rule that statements made by suspects in response to custodial interrogation are admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief only following a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights – has survived decades of attacks. While the “stormy seas” the decision navigated produced a wake of academic study of the wisdom of the decision, little attention has been focused on an equally logical question: did Miranda go far enough? If, as the Miranda Court emphasized, the purpose of Miranda’s warnings was …
The Missing Miranda Warning: Why What You Don’T Know Really Can Hurt You, Geoffrey S. Corn
The Missing Miranda Warning: Why What You Don’T Know Really Can Hurt You, Geoffrey S. Corn
Geoffrey S. Corn
Abstract The Missing Miranda Warning: Why What You Don’t Know Really Can Hurt You
Miranda – at least the core rule that statements made by suspects in response to custodial interrogation are admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief only following a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights – has survived decades of attack. However, since the Supreme Court decided this seminal case, little attention has been focused on whether Miranda went far enough? If, as the Miranda Court emphasized, the purpose of Miranda warnings was to ensure criminal suspects were provided a meaningful opportunity to exercise their privilege against …