Law Commons^™

What’S Fear Got To Do With It?: The “Armed And Dangerous” Requirement Of Terry, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

Reason to believe a person may be involved in criminal activity is not necessarily also reason to believe that person is armed and dangerous. "Stop and frisk," therefore, more accurately should be thought of as "stop and maybe frisk." But courts have conflated or ignored these two distinctive kinds of suspicion, inviting police officers to frisk automatically during an investigative detention, a practice that ignores the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment and subjects suspects to the indignity and intrusion of a search unsupported by any level of suspicion. This article explores some of the ways in which this undermining …

The Promise Of Things To Come: Anticipatory Warrants In Texas, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

While the U.S. Supreme Court has settled the question of the constitutionality of anticipatory search warrants, Texas has no statutory provision regulating the issuance of such warrants. Similarly, state appellate courts have contributed almost nothing to the question of whether such warrants are acceptable under Texas procedural law or, if they are, under what circumstances. As the use of such warrants grows in the state, these issues require attention. This article begins that discussion, reviewing existing law and proposing interpretations of current statutes as well as proposing others.

Federal Rules Update: How Rules Are Made: A Brief Review, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

A number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence became effective on December 1, 2009. The change to Criminal Rule 7 deleted subdivision (c)(2), which required that the indictment include notice that the defendant has an interest in forfeitable property. Criminal Rule 32 now provides that the presentence report state whether the government is seeking forfeiture of property. Criminal Rule 32.2 received six amendments concerning criminal forfeiture. Criminal Rule 41 created a two-step process for seizing and reviewing electronic storage media. Further, of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings, Rule 11 was created to make the requirements …

Federal Rules Update: Technology-Related Rules, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In June 2009, the Standing Committee on the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence authorized publication for comment on a number of technology-related rules of criminal procedure. Criminal Rule 1 would state that the terms “telephone,” “telephonic,” or “telephonically” mean any form or live electronic voice communication. Rule 3 would allow officers to submit a complaint and supporting material electronically. Changes to Rule 4 would address electronically processed and submitted arrest warrants. Proposed new Rule 4.1 would permit magistrate judges to consider information presented electronically in deciding whether to issue a warrant or summons or approve a complaint. The amendment …

Federal Rules Update: How Rules Are Made: A Brief Review, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In June 2007, the Standing Committee on the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence authorized publication for comment on a number amendments to the rules of criminal procedure. The amendment to Criminal Rule 7 would delete subdivision (c)(2) because it is covered in Rule 32.2(a). The change to Criminal Rule 32 would provide that the presentence report should state whether the government is seeking forfeiture of property. Amendments to Criminal Rule 32.2. would change a number of procedures related to criminal forfeiture. Criminal Rule 41 would create a two-step process for seizing and reviewing electronic storage media. Amendments to the …

Criminal Procedure Rules Pending Public Comment, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Federal Rules Update: How Rules Are Made: A Brief Review, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

A number of Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence are scheduled for amendment on December 1, 2006, unless Congress amends them further or disapproves of the changes. The amendment to Rule 5 would remove a conflict between Rule 58 and Rule 5.1(a) concerning when a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. Rule 6 would undergo purely technical changes making the rule conform to the writing conventions used in the restyling of the Criminal Rules. Rule 32.1 is being amended to permit the government to produce certified copies of the judgment, warrant, or warrant application by “reliable electronic means.” Under …

A Call For Comment: Restyling And Amending The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In August 2000, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure published—for public comment—proposed amendments to the entire set of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposals mark the culmination of a two-year project to “restyle” the rules—to modernize and reorganize and to make them internally consistent in format and style. Not since the rules were first promulgated in 1946 has there been such a significant change in the structure, format, and substance. This article first addresses the rule-making process for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and then examines the restyling process. Finally, it notes several of …

Up In Smoke: Fourth Amendment Rights And The Burger Court, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

When Warren Burger was appointed Chief Justice in 1969, he was expected to lead the Supreme Court away from its liberal, value-laden approach to constitutional adjudication. Indeed, a retrospective of the court’s work during the seventeen years Warren Burger served as Chief Justice reveals the expected conservative trend of the Chief Justice himself, as well as the Supreme Court generally. It does not, however, reflect wholesale rejection of the most controversial civil liberties decisions rendered by the Warren Court. It is also unclear that Chief Justice Burger was responsible for the Court’s retrenchment on civil liberties where it did occur. …

Investigative Detentions For Purposes Of Fingerprinting, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article focuses on constitutional issues associated with fingerprinting suspects in investigative detention. Following a series of barracks larcenies, Naval Investigative Service (NIS) investigators fingerprinted approximately 100 servicemembers. All those ordered to report to the NIS office for fingerprinting had been present in the unit at the time of the offenses, and among those was the accused, who was later linked to the crime through his fingerprints. Before the accused reported to the NIS office there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that he was in any way involved in the crimes. Were the fingerprints admissible?

United …

Bodily Evidence And Rule 312, M.R.E., David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

n addressing the issues of obtaining bodily evidence, such as bodily fluids, from a suspect, Rule 312 of the Military Rules of Evidence must be considered in conjunction with the issues of self-incrimination, due process, and the Fourth Amendment. The Rule describes the procedures for collection of bodily evidence of service members. For example, a service member may not invoke the right against self-incrimination for external bodily evidence, but may when bodily fluids or cavity searches are requested. Any nonconsensual search may be conducted if it is both reasonable and performed under one of the authorized procedures of Rule 312. …