Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Active pursuit (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Foreign evidence (1)
-
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (1)
- Independent source (1)
- Inevitable discovery (1)
- Multinational investigations (1)
- Murray v. United States (1)
- Nardone v. United States (1)
- Nix v. Williams (1)
- Police misconduct (1)
- Search and seizure (1)
- Silverthrone Lumber Co. v. United States (1)
- Statutes of limitations (1)
- Warrant (1)
- Wong Sun v. United States (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.