Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Active pursuit (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Congress (1)
-
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- Dickerson v. United States (1)
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (1)
- Independent source (1)
- Inevitable discovery (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Legislative history (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Murray v. United States (1)
- Nardone v. United States (1)
- Nix v. Williams (1)
- Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1)
- Police (1)
- Police misconduct (1)
- Search and seizure (1)
- Silverthrone Lumber Co. v. United States (1)
- Totality of circumstances (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Voluntary nature (1)
- Warrant (1)
- Wong Sun v. United States (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
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 …
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …