Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Anonymous tip (1)
- Criminal attacks (1)
- Criminal justice system (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Duty owed to passengers (1)
-
- Duty to protect passengers (1)
- Fleeing suspects (1)
- Founded suspicion (1)
- Frisk (1)
- Judicial discretion (1)
- Juvenile (1)
- Juvenile code (1)
- Juvenile court system (1)
- Juvenile detention (1)
- Juvenile justice system (1)
- Juvenile preadjudication (1)
- Mass transit (1)
- Mass transportation (1)
- Multiple felony offender (1)
- Municipal liability (1)
- Municipal tort liability (1)
- New York (1)
- New York City Transit Authority (1)
- New York City transit (1)
- Police (1)
- Pretrial detention (1)
- Reasonable suspicion (1)
- Retribution (1)
- Stop-and-frisk (1)
- Subway (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Juvenile Detention Hearings: A Proposed Model Provision To Limit Discretion During The Preadjudicatory Stage, Carol Bombardi, Carol Bombardi, Carol Bombardi, Carol Bombardi
Juvenile Detention Hearings: A Proposed Model Provision To Limit Discretion During The Preadjudicatory Stage, Carol Bombardi, Carol Bombardi, Carol Bombardi, Carol Bombardi
Fordham Urban Law Journal
This Note addresses constitutional issues relevant to pretrial detention and identifies problematic aspects in the existing juvenile justice system. It examines state and model provisions regarding the detention of youths prior to trial and concentrates on the inclusion of the detention hearing as an element of detention schemes. This Note proposes a model state provision that utilizes the detention hearing to protect the preadjudicatory rights of juveniles and to reduce the risk that detention will be unnecessarily ordered.
Municipal Tort Liability For Criminal Attacks Against Passengers On Mass Transportation, Robert S. Ondrovic, Robert S. Ondrovic, Robert S. Ondrovic, Robert S. Ondrovic
Municipal Tort Liability For Criminal Attacks Against Passengers On Mass Transportation, Robert S. Ondrovic, Robert S. Ondrovic, Robert S. Ondrovic, Robert S. Ondrovic
Fordham Urban Law Journal
This Note discusses municipal tort liability for criminal attacks against passengers. The analysis focuses upon the liability of the New York City Transit Authority (TA). Comparisons are made to other mass transit systems in order to examine various theories concerning the duty owed by the municipally-run transit system to its passengers. Recommendations are offered to construct a clear standard of care with corresponding limits on liability. Further, this Note discusses various safety measures and will analyze the issues of whether the TA has assumed a duty to protect its passengers by developing such measures to combat subway crime and the …
Stop And Frisk In New York: Fleeing Suspects And Anonymous Tips, Kenneth M. Dorros, Kenneth M. Doros, Kenneth M. Doros, Kenneth M. Doros
Stop And Frisk In New York: Fleeing Suspects And Anonymous Tips, Kenneth M. Dorros, Kenneth M. Doros, Kenneth M. Doros, Kenneth M. Doros
Fordham Urban Law Journal
This Note focuses on two areas of uncertainty: the authority to stop and frisk fleeing suspects and the appropriate grounds to stop and frisk a suspect based on an anonymous tip. Four years ago, the ambiguities of a controversial New York Court of Appeals decision threw the lower courts into disarray as the standard of suspicion necessary to justify a police officer's pursuit of a fleeing suspect. This Note attempts to clarify those ambiguities and suggests a more reasonable approach for adoption by the court of appeals. This Note also explores the extent to which an anonymous tip can serve …
Retribution: New York's Answer To The Multiple Felony Offender, Edward P. Abbot
Retribution: New York's Answer To The Multiple Felony Offender, Edward P. Abbot
Fordham Urban Law Journal
On May 31, 1983, Governor Cuomo signed an amendment to the New York Penal Law into effect. This amendment significantly increases the maximum prison term for multiple felony offenders. This amendment is primarily a provision, which stems from a retributivist theory of punishment. The intent of this amendment is twofold: first, to do justice by implementing a punishment more proportionate to the severity of the offender's crime(s) and second, to incapacitate the offender by his extended removal from society. Retribution has been an accepted rationale for imposing punishment and remains so today. Thus, the statute deserves prompt judicial recognition.