Law Commons^™

Excluding Exclusion: How Herring Jeopardizes The Fourth Amendment's Protections Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Hariqbal Basi

Hariqbal Basi

Abstract- For nearly a half-century, the exclusionary rule has remained an important mechanism for ensuring police compliance with the Fourth Amendment and deterring unconstitutional searches and seizures. In January 2009, the Supreme Court held in Herring v. United States that the exclusionary rule does not apply to good faith negligent police behavior. This significantly broadened the law, and severely limits the future application of the exclusionary rule. Furthermore, this holding has strong potential for abuse by police departments. By analogizing to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence and Miranda rights, I argue that the ruling in Herring needs to be limited in order …

Best Of The Supremes - A Review Of The U.S. Supreme Court Term 2009-2010, Miller W. Shealy Jr.

Miller W. Shealy Jr.

No abstract provided.

The Death Of Miranda V. Arizona, Patrick J. Noonan

Patrick J. Noonan

On June 1, 2010, the United States Supreme Court made a watershed decision, turning its decision in Miranda v. Arizona “upside down.” In the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, the court ruled 5 to 4 that a Michigan defendant who incriminated himself in a fatal shooting after nearly three hours of questioning gave up his right to silence, and the statement could be used against him.

This paper discusses the history and lead-up to the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, the aftermath and reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court's resistance, conflicting …