Law Commons^™

Law School News: Fall 2020 Reopening: The Faq 07-09-2020, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Law Library Blog (April 2020): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Chilling: The Constitutional Implications Of Body-Worn Cameras And Facial Recognition Technology At Public Protests, Julian R. Murphy

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In recent years body-worn cameras have been championed by community groups, scholars, and the courts as a potential check on police misconduct. Such has been the enthusiasm for body-worn cameras that, in a relatively short time, they have been rolled out to police departments across the country. Perhaps because of the optimism surrounding these devices there has been little consideration of the Fourth Amendment issues they pose, especially when they are coupled with facial recognition technology (FRT). There is one particular context in which police use of FRT equipped body-worn cameras is especially concerning: public protests. This Comment constitutes the …

Preventing An Air Panopticon: A Proposal For Reasonable Legal Restrictions On Aerial Surveillance, Jake Laperruque

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: A True Original(Ist) 02-15-2016, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

A Missouri Citizen’S Guide To Red Light Cameras, Joe Conlon

Missouri Law Review

Red light cameras are a hotly debated issue in Missouri. Many supporters argue that red light cameras reduce accidents and save lives.1 Those opposed claim the cameras do more harm than good.2 This Summary provides a brief background on red light cameras and their early use in Missouri. This Summary then discusses the recent development in red light camera laws, including the string of recent Missouri court cases dealing with the issue, as well as proposed state legislation. Finally, this Summary discusses possible legal arguments one can present in court in the event that he or she is accused of …

Visual Jurisprudence, Richard Sherwin

Articles & Chapters

Lawyers, judges, and jurors face a vast array of visual evidence and visual argument inside the contemporary courtroom. From videos documenting crimes and accidents to computer displays of their digital simulation, increasingly, the search for fact-based justice is becoming an offshoot of visual meaning making. But when law migrates to the screen it lives there as other images do, motivating belief and judgment on the basis of visual delight and unconscious fantasies and desires as well as actualities. Law as image also shares broader cultural anxieties concerning not only the truth of the image, but also the mimetic capacity itself, …

One More Good Reason For In-Car Videotaping Of Traffic Stops: An Accurate Assessment Of "Consent", Robert L. White

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

There are a number of reasons why legislative reform mandating the use of in-car cameras in police cruisers would benefit the criminal justice system in Illinois. In-car cameras provide evidence for cases involving traffic violations or intoxicated motorists. They produce instantly available training materials. They also assist victims of police misconduct, as well as officers defending themselves against misconduct claims. This Comment looks to add to this list of benefits the role in-car cameras can play in assessing the validity of consents to search that officers obtain during traffic stops.

The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.

The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, …

Of Cameras And Courtrooms, Alex Kozinski, Robert Johnson

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Omniveillance, Privacy In Public, And The Right To Your Digital Identity: A Tort For Recording And Disseminating An Individual’S Image Over The Internet, Josh Blackman

Josh Blackman

Internet giant Google recently began photographing American streets with a new technology they entitled Google Street View. These high-resolution cameras capture people, both outside, and inside of their homes, engaged in private matters. Although the present iteration of this technology only displays previously recorded images, current privacy laws do not prevent Google, or other technology companies, or wealthy individuals, from implementing a system that broadcasts live video feeds of street corner throughout America. Such pervasive human monitoring is the essence of the phenomenon this Article has termed omniveillance. This threat is all the more realistic in light of projected trends …

Avoiding And Resolving Disputes During Sports Competition: Of Cameras And Computers , James A.R. Nafziger

Marquette Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Open Courtroom: Should Cameras Be Permitted In New York State Courts?, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

On June 30, 1997, the State of New York became one of the nation's few states which does not permit audio-visual coverage of court proceedings. There are several potent arguments in the determination of whether cameras should be permitted in courtroom proceedings. This article will briefly summarize the history of the use of cameras in New York State courts, and then, set out the arguments for and against their use in the state's judicial system. The article is prompted by the book entitled “An Open Courtroom: Cameras in New York Courts” which was published in 1997 by the New York …

Framing The Issues For Cameras In The Courtrooms: Redefining Judicial Dignity And Decorum, A Wayne Mackay

Dalhousie Law Journal

This article examines the role of s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights in determining the role of cameras in Canadian courtrooms. The discussions reveal that arguments in opposition to cameras are largely unfounded and in contradiction to the freedom of expression guarantee. The denial of the right is in reality based on judges' and lawyers' fear of loss of control of the courtroom environment. Cameras should only be banned from courtrooms as part of a total publication ban, and then only after a careful s. 1 analysis

Cameras Go To Court: A Study Of Television Cameras In State And Federal Courtrooms, Tonya Rochelle Beavert

Honors Theses

For several years there has been an ongoing dispute between members of the media and members of the legal community about television coverage of judicial proceedings. Members of the media tend to argue that they have a First Amendment right and responsibility to cover court proceedings as a representative of the people. Court officials tend to answer the media's assertion with the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to a public trial by an impartial jury.

The problem that resulted from the dispute was whether the presence of cameras in the courtroom imposed on defendants' rights or whether …

Canon 35: Cameras, Courts And Confusion, Harold D. Rogers

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Quasi-Contracts -- Contracts Unenforceable Under Statute Of Frauds -- Test Of Benefits, Charles C. Spangenberg

Michigan Law Review

Defendant orally contracted to buy fifty special type motion picture cameras which plaintiff was to build. Plaintiff had completed ten cameras in whole and forty in part when defendant repudiated, setting up the defense that the contract was void under the California statute of frauds. In an action on the common counts for labor done and materials furnished, the court held, that plaintiff could not recover because defendant had accepted or retained no benefit from which a promise to pay could be implied. Mitchell Camera Corp. v. Fox Film Corp., (Cal. 1936) 59 P. (2d) 127.