Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Celaj, Danielle Dupré

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Johnson, Denise Shanley

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Of Myths And Mapp: A Response To Professor Magee, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

Supreme Court doctrine protects two seemingly distinct kinds of interests under the heading of privacy rights: one "substantive," the other "procedural." The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been generally interpreted to protect procedural privacy. Searches are typically defined as governmental inspections of activities and locations in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. In the typical case, this reasonable expectation of privacy may be breached only where the government has acquired a quantitatively substantial objective basis for believing that the search would uncover evidence of a crime. Substantive privacy rights have not …

What Is A Search? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctine And Some Hints Of A Remedy, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Profiling With Apologies, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

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

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity In The Fourth Amendment: A Practical Application Of 1983 As It Applies To Fourth Amendment Excessive Force Cases, Karen Blum

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Barnville, David Schoenhaar

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justification For Police Intrusions, Corey Rashkover

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interpreting Search Incident To Arrest In New York: Past, Present, And Future, Jacqueline Iaquinta

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizures: Constitutionally Protected Or Discretionary Police Work?, Jaren Fernan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Seize First, Search Later: The Hunt For Digital Evidence, Paige Bartholomew

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Injunctions, Nirej S. Sekhon

Nirej Sekhon

No abstract provided.

Future Of The Fourth Amendment: The Problem With Privacy, Poverty And Policing, Kami Chavis Simmons

Faculty Publications

For decades, the reasonable expectation of privacy has been the primary standard by which courts have determined whether a "search" has occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. v. Jones, however, has reinvigorated the physical trespass doctrine's importance when determining whether there has been a "search" triggering constitutional protection. Recognizing the unpredictability of the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine and that doctrine's bias against the urban poor, many scholars hope that the Jones opinion may ameliorate the class divide that has developed in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

This Article argues that while …

The Framers' Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Mounting Evidence, Roger Roots

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment Fetches Fido: The Future Of Dog Searches, Robert M. Bloom, Dana L. Walsh

Robert M. Bloom

For over thirty-five years, the Supreme Court has grappled with the controversial issue of affirmative action and race preference. Beginning with Justice Lewis Powell’s influential opinion in Bakke v. U. Cal. Davis in 1978, leeway has been permitted for admissions policies that take account of race, as long as it is not given determinative weight so as to exclude consideration of nonminority candidates, or used to set quotas. As the Court has become increasingly conservative, however, its license for race preference has tightened considerably, and it has become receptive to “reverse discrimination” plaintiffs challenging such policies in universities and the …

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Conversational Consent Search: How “Quick Look” And Other Similar Searches Have Eroded Our Constitutional Rights, Alexander A. Mikhalevsky

Georgia State University Law Review

One area in which law enforcement agencies have stretched constitutional limits concerns the scope of a suspect’s consent to search his or her vehicle. Police forces across the country have tested the limits of consent by asking vague, conversational questions to suspects with the goal of obtaining a suspect’s consent to search, even though that individual may not want to allow the search or may not know that he or she has the right to deny consent.

Conversational phrases like “Can I take a quick look?” or “Can I take a quick look around?” have “emerg[ed] as . . . …

53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series, The Hon. Justice John Paul Stevens

Georgia State University Law Review

Remarks by the Honorable John Paul Stevens, Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the 53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series.

The Case For Rational Basis Review Of General Suspicionless Searches And Seizures, Richard C. Worf

Touro Law Review

This article examines the constitutional status of suspicionless searches and seizures of groups- an exceedingly important question in the age of terror, and a subject recently brought back to the forefront by the searches of subway passengers in New York City. It draws on process theory to argue that when a legislature has authorized a group search or seizure, courts should generally apply rational basis review.

First, other areas of constitutional doctrine exhibit deep trust in the power of groups to protect their interests in political process, and there is no reason why fourth amendment doctrine should not do the …

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Hall, Eric Pack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Burton, Diane Matero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.