Law Commons^™

Prosecutors In The Passing Lane: Racial Disparities, Public Safety, And Prosecutorial Declinations Of Pretextual Stops, Donald Braman, Jared Fishman, Lily Grier, Kevin Himberger, Jarvis Idowu, J.J. Naddeo, Rory Pulvino, Jess Sorensen, Joanie Weaver

San Diego Law Review

In response to a growing set of empirical studies demonstrating their widespread discriminatory effects, pretextual stops have been subjected to decades of criticism from scholars, the public, and jurists. However, pretextual stops have been defended by some as a necessary public safety measure, particularly in the fight against violent gun crimes. Following a series of highly publicized police shootings of unarmed Black drivers during pretextual stops, and in the absence of substantial judicial or legislative guidance, a growing number of prosecutors have developed policies deprecating the prosecution of pretextual stops absent a clear public safety benefit. Without empirical evaluations of …

The Rational Basis Test And Why It Is So Irrational: An Eighty-Year Retrospective, James M. Mcgoldrick Jr.

San Diego Law Review

The Rational Basis test is one of the most common and yet perhaps the most insignificant United States Supreme Court test in the history of the constitution, yet year in year out clients and lawyers will submit another brief hoping against hope that this time there might be a meaningful outcome. There will not be.

This article attempts to explain why the rational basis test is so irrational in its outcome, why basic interests are disregarded in the name of judicial respect for the legislative process, and how easy it would be for there to be a better outcome. The …

Making The Grade: School-Based Telemedicine And Parental Consent, Emily G. Narum

San Diego Law Review

This Comment advocates for a uniform state-by-state regulation, requiring schools to obtain parental consent immediately before any telemedicine service is provided to their children at school. Alternatively, the constitutional issues could be eliminated if telemedicine consent forms enumerate a finite and limited list of what medical services may be provided. These reforms will ensure not only that parents’ and children’s constitutional rights are protected, but also that schools and doctors provide the most informed health care services. Part II describes a background of school-based health, as well as the benefits and risks of offering telemedicine in schools. Part III explains …

Overseas Lawful Permanent Resident Terrorists: The Novel Approach For Revoking Their Lpr Status, Daniel Pines

San Diego Law Review

This Article seeks to break the silence by examining the issue of overseas LPRs and offering a mechanism by which the U.S. government could take affirmative action to file cases in immigration courts to strip out-of-status LPR terrorists of their LPR status. As the United States legally can, and routinely does, revoke the LPR status of out-of-status LPRs who appear at U.S. borders, the United States could also take away such status for those who have resorted to terror, without having to wait—perhaps in vain—for them to appear on the United States’ doorstep. The purpose of granting an individual LPR …

To Breathe, Or Not To Breathe: Passive Alcohol Sensors And The Fourth Amendment

San Diego Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Wrong Line Between Freedom And Restraint: The Unreality, Obscurity, And Hcivility Of The Fourth Amendment Consensual Encounter Doctrine, Daniel J. Steinbock

San Diego Law Review

restraint is clearly one of the most important, and one the law should be most anxious to get right. On the one side lies freedom to move around physically-the essence of what most people mean by "liberty." While not explicitly defined in the Constitution, this liberty is protected by several of its provisions: the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,' the right to habeas corpus, the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures. Together they ensure against interference with personal freedom of movement in the form of bondage, incarceration, civil confinement, …

An Analysis Of Terry V. Ohio And Its Implications Upon The California Law Of Stop And Frisk, Judith N. Keep

San Diego Law Review

The controversy surrounding the legality of police "stop and frisk" practices at last has been partially resolved by the Supreme Court. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, which is further illuminated by its companion case Sibron v. New York, the Court established a constitutional standard for the frisk under the search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment. Additionally, it strongly suggested that the same standard would be applied to the stop. Thus, not only did the Court resolve the debate in favor of this often employed police practice, but under the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, the standard …

Criminal Law At The International Border, Josph A. Milchen

San Diego Law Review

[G]eographical considerations are set forth to indicate the potential scope of legal problems that might arise at an international border. The mere length of the border permits imaginative speculation regarding possible violations of customs laws. Although some aspects of the law applicable at the international border are well settled, neither legislative insight nor fertile imagination nor past experience provide sufficient perception to cover the myriad situations that can arise at the border. Furthermore, new developments in related fields must be examined insofar as the border-crossing situation may affect or be affected by them. As a result, there ate the following …

Searches And Seizures - Information Supplied By An Anonymous Informer Must Be Corroborated By Establishing That The Law Is Being Violated To Constitute A Basis For Probable Cause To Search Or Arrest Without'a Warrant: Verification Of Other Information Is Insufficient Corroboration. People V. Reeves (Cal. 1964), Armando L. Odorico

San Diego Law Review

This recent case discusses People v. Reeves (Cal. 1964)

Seizure Of Private Papers Pursuant To A Search Warrant: With Specific Application To Federal And California Bookmaking Prosecutions, Dennis G. Adams

San Diego Law Review

The federal exclusionary rule excludes evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Mapp v. Ohio and Malloy v. Hogan, have made the federal exclusionary rule and the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applicable to the states. Because this type of evidence usually forms the basis of bookmaking convictions, this article discusses whether such evidence can still be constitutionally seized in California. The author concludes that these Supreme Court cases have rendered California Penal Code § 1524, governing property validly seizable under a search warrant, unconstitutional.