Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
No, You May Not Search My Car! Extending Georgia V. Randolph To Vehicle Searches, Alex Chan
No, You May Not Search My Car! Extending Georgia V. Randolph To Vehicle Searches, Alex Chan
Washington Law Review
In Georgia v. Randolph, the United States Supreme Court announced that third-party consent does not always suffice to immunize the search of a residence from Fourth Amendment attack. Specifically, the Court held that a police search of a residence conducted pursuant to the consent of one occupant, but over the express refusal of a physically present co-occupant with common authority, is unreasonable as to the nonconsenting occupant under the Fourth Amendment. The Court did not indicate whether its holding also extended to searches of personal effects, such as vehicles, conducted pursuant to third-party consent. As a general principle, the …
No, You May Not Search My Car! Extending Georgia V. Randolph To Vehicle Searches, Alex Chan
No, You May Not Search My Car! Extending Georgia V. Randolph To Vehicle Searches, Alex Chan
Washington Law Review
In Georgia v. Randolph, the United States Supreme Court announced that third-party consent does not always suffice to immunize the search of a residence from Fourth Amendment attack. Specifically, the Court held that a police search of a residence conducted pursuant to the consent of one occupant, but over the express refusal of a physically present co-occupant with common authority, is unreasonable as to the nonconsenting occupant under the Fourth Amendment. The Court did not indicate whether its holding also extended to searches of personal effects, such as vehicles, conducted pursuant to third-party consent. As a general principle, the …
Furman Fundamentals, Corinna Barrett Lain
Furman Fundamentals, Corinna Barrett Lain
Washington Law Review
For the first time in a long time, the Supreme Court's most important death penalty decisions all have gone the defendant's way. Is the Court's newfound willingness to protect capital defendants just a reflection of the times, or could it have come even without public support for those protections? At first glance, history allows for optimism. Furman v. Georgia, the 1972 landmark decision that invalidated the death penalty, provides a seemingly perfect example of the Court's ability and inclination to protect capital defendants when no one else will. Furman looks countermajoritarian, scholars have claimed it was countermajoritarian, and even …
Furman Fundamentals, Corinna Barrett Lain
Furman Fundamentals, Corinna Barrett Lain
Washington Law Review
For the first time in a long time, the Supreme Court's most important death penalty decisions all have gone the defendant's way. Is the Court's newfound willingness to protect capital defendants just a reflection of the times, or could it have come even without public support for those protections? At first glance, history allows for optimism. Furman v. Georgia, the 1972 landmark decision that invalidated the death penalty, provides a seemingly perfect example of the Court's ability and inclination to protect capital defendants when no one else will. Furman looks countermajoritarian, scholars have claimed it was countermajoritarian, and even …