Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White
Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White
Michigan Law Review
Most contemporary discussions of the "exclusionary rule" assume or assert that this "rule" is not part of the fourth amendment, nor required by its terms, but is rather a judicial "remedy" that was fashioned to protect those rights (against unreasonable search and seizure) that actually are granted by the fourth amendment. The protection is said to work by "deterring" official violations; this is, however, an odd use of the word, for the rule does not punish violations but merely deprives the government of some of the benefits that might ensue from them, namely the use in the criminal case of …
The Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy
The Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy
Michigan Law Review
Part I of this Article establishes that the government has a right to search for and seize evidence of crime. Part II develops the corollary proposition that the fourth amendment does not protect the right to secrete evidence of crime. Part III explores the impact of the reasonable expectation of privacy concept on the innocent. Part IV evaluates consent searches and their effect on the innocent. Finally, Part V considers the exclusionary rule as a device for protecting the innocent.
Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar
Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
[U]ntil the [exclusionary rule] rests on a principled basis rather than an empirical proposition, [the rule] will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium. Mapp v. Ohio, which overruled the then twelve-year-old Wolf case and imposed the fourth amendment exclusionary rule (the Weeks doctrine) on the states as a matter of fourteenth amendment due process, seemed to mark the end of an era. Concurring in Mapp, Justice Douglas recalled that Wolf had evoked "a storm of constitutional controversy which only today finds its end."' But in the two decades since Justice Douglas made this observation, the storm of controversy has …
The Right To Bail In United States Extradition Proceedings, Carl A. Valenstein
The Right To Bail In United States Extradition Proceedings, Carl A. Valenstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
This note examines the judicial rationale for denying bail in extradition proceedings except in special circumstances. The author maintains that the courts apply the special circumstances rule inconsistently. Moreover, a better balance should be struck between the interests of the accused and the interests of the United States Government. This can be accomplished by granting the accused in an extradition proceeding the same right to bail before a final order granting extradition as exists under the federal bail statute.
The Warren Court (Was It Really So Defense-Minded?), The Burger Court (Is It Really So Prosecution-Oriented?), And Police Investigatory Practices, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
In one sense the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure may be said to. have been launched by the 1956 case of Griffin v. Illinois (establishing an indigent criminal defendant's right to a free transcript on appeal, at least under certain circumstances) and to have been significantly advanced by two 1963 cases: Gideon v. Wainwright (entitling an indigent defendant to free counsel, at least in serious criminal cases) and Douglas v. California (requiring a state to provide an indigent with counsel on his first appeal from a criminal conviction). But these were not the cases that plunged the Warren …
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
Richard Nixon's criticism of the Warren Court during the 1968 presidential campaign centered largely on the Court's handling of cases involving criminal rights. According to candidate Nixon, the Court had gone much too far. It had twisted the Constitution to serve its own purposes, created a maze of legal technicalities that worked only to frustrate legitimate law enforcement efforts, and so weakened "the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country" as to be largely responsible for the sharp rise in crime that had occurred in the sixties. What had to be done, continued Nixon, was to appoint …