Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Standing Room Only: Why Fourth Amendment Exclusion And Standing Can No Longer Logically Coexist, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment And Search And Seizure—Introducing The Supreme Court's New And Improved Summers Detention: Now Equipped With Handcuffing And Questioning! Muehler V. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), Ryan J. Caststeel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This note explores the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Muehler v. Mena that extended the holding in Michigan v. Summers that allows police officers to handcuff and question occupants of a house who are lawfully being detained during the execution of a valid search warrant. First, the note examines the facts behind the Mena case itself. Second, the note explores the historical developments in Fourth Amendments jurisprudence that led up to the Mena decision. This section of the note focuses on the following five main topics: (1) the creation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) the evolution of the …

Tied Up In Knotts? Gps Technology And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial and scholarly assessment of emerging technology seems poised to drive the Fourth Amendment down one of three paths. The first would simply relegate the amendment to a footnote in history books by limiting its reach to harms that the framers specifically envisioned. A modified version of this first approach would dispense with expansive constitutional notions of privacy and replace them with legislative fixes. A third path offers the amendment continued vitality but requires the U.S. Supreme Court to overhaul its Fourth Amendment analysis. Fortunately, a fourth alternative is available to cabin emerging technologies within the existing doctrinal framework. Analysis …

Wiretapping And Eavesdropping: Surveillance In The Internet Age, 3rd Ed., Anne T. Mckenna, Clifford S. Fishman

Books

The third edition of the seminal “Fishman & McKenna” Wiretapping treatise analyzes federal and state law and the rapidly evolving civil and criminal legal issues and privacy issues surrounding the Internet, computers, cellular devices, electronic location tracking, drones, and biometrics. Since its publication, this treatise has been cited in multiple published federal and state judicial opinions, including by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in August 2010 and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in August 2014. The third edition is a well-known resource for attorneys working in private practice and in …

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

Litigating Civil Rights Cases To Reform Racially Biased Criminal Justice Practices, David Rudovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Lessons From The Highway And The Subway: A Principled Approach To Suspicionless Searches, Ricardo J. Bascuas

Articles

The threat of future terrorist attacks has sped the proliferation of random, suspicionless searches and seizures, such as those now made of New York City subway riders. Courts assess the legality of such searches with an inherently flawed balancing test developed to assess searches and seizures made without "probable cause." Although scholars and Justices alike have decried the resort to balancing individual interests against the government's need to search, no alternative framework has been proposed. This Article proposes a more principled, objective inquiry for determining when suspicionless searches can be made. To eliminate the need for balancing, this Article advances …

Search Me?, John Burkoff

Articles

Professor Burkoff contends that most people who purportedly "consent" to searches by law enforcement officers are not really - freely and voluntarily, as the Supreme Court decisional law supposedly requires - consenting to such searches. Yet, absent unusual circumstances, the great likelihood is that a court nonetheless will conclude that such consent was valid and any evidence seized admissible under the Fourth Amendment. Professor Burkoff argues, however, that the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Georgia v. Randolph now dictates that the application of consent law doctrine should reflect the actual voluntariness (or involuntariness) of the questioned consents that come before …

The Technology Of Surveillance: Will The Supreme Court's Expectations Ever Resemble Society's?, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

For at least thirty years the Supreme Court has adhered to its third-party doctrine in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, meaning that so far as a disclosing party is concerned, information in the hands of a third party receives no Fourth Amendment protection. The doctrine was controversial when adopted, has been the target of sustained criticism, and is the predominant reason that the Katz revolution has not been the revolution many hoped it would be. Some forty years after Katz the Court's search jurisprudence largely remains tied to property conceptions. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, however, the doctrine is not the …