Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (16)
- Exclusionary rule (15)
- Police (15)
- Searches (14)
- Seizures (14)
-
- Admissibility (12)
- Mapp v. Ohio (11)
- Fourth Amendment (6)
- Search and seizure (6)
- Voluntary nature (6)
- Confessions (5)
- Wolf v. Colorado (5)
- Custodial interrogations (4)
- Miranda v. Arizona (4)
- Hudson v. Michigan (3)
- Search (3)
- Search warrants (3)
- Weeks v. United States (3)
- Arrest (2)
- Coercion (2)
- Consitutional interpretation (2)
- Exclusionary Rule (2)
- Impeachment (2)
- Law reform (2)
- Minnesota (2)
- Olmstead v. United States (2)
- Police misconduct (2)
- Rehnquist (William) (2)
- Retroactivity (2)
- Searches and Seizures (2)
Articles 1 - 27 of 27
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Terry Stops And Frisks: The Troubling Use Of Common Sense In A World Of Empirical Data, David A. Harris, David Rudovsky
Terry Stops And Frisks: The Troubling Use Of Common Sense In A World Of Empirical Data, David A. Harris, David Rudovsky
Articles
The investigative detention doctrine first announced in Terry v. Ohio and amplified over the past fifty years has been much analyzed, praised, and criticized from a number of perspectives. Significantly, however, over this time period commentators have only occasionally questioned the Supreme Court’s “common sense” judgments regarding the factors sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for stops and frisks. For years, the Court has provided no empirical basis for its judgments, due in large part to the lack of reliable data. Now, with the emergence of comprehensive data on these police practices, much can be learned about the predictive power of …
Riley V. California And The Beginning Of The End For The Third-Party Search Doctrine, David A. Harris
Riley V. California And The Beginning Of The End For The Third-Party Search Doctrine, David A. Harris
Articles
In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court decided that when police officers seize a smart phone, they may not search through its contents -- the data found by looking into the call records, calendars, pictures and so forth in the phone -- without a warrant. In the course of the decision, the Court said that the rule applied not just to data that was physically stored on the device, but also to data stored "in the cloud" -- in remote sites -- but accessed through the device. This piece of the decision may, at last, allow a re-examination of …
The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
Articles
There has been a good deal of talk lately to the effect that Miranda1 is dead or dying-or might as well be dead.2 Even liberals have indicated that the death of Miranda might not be a bad thing. This brings to mind a saying by G.K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up."4
When Machines Are Watching: How Warrantless Use Of Gps Surveillance Technology Violates The Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Searches, David Thaw, Priscilla Smith, Nabiha Syed, Albert Wong
When Machines Are Watching: How Warrantless Use Of Gps Surveillance Technology Violates The Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Searches, David Thaw, Priscilla Smith, Nabiha Syed, Albert Wong
Articles
Federal and state law enforcement officials throughout the nation are currently using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for automated, prolonged surveillance without obtaining warrants. As a result, cases are proliferating in which criminal defendants are challenging law enforcement’s warrantless uses of GPS surveillance technology, and courts are looking for direction from the Supreme Court. Most recently, a split has emerged between the Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue. In United States v. Pineda-Moreno, the Ninth Circuit relied on United States v. Knotts — which approved the limited use of beeper technology without a warrant — to …
Hanging On By A Thread: The Exclusionary Rule (Or What's Left Of It) Lives For Another Day, David A. Moran
Hanging On By A Thread: The Exclusionary Rule (Or What's Left Of It) Lives For Another Day, David A. Moran
Articles
Back when there was a Soviet Union, foreign intelligence officers would anxiously await the May Day parade in Moscow to see who would be standing next to the chairman of the Communist Party and who would be missing from the reviewing platform altogether. Since the Soviet government and the statecontrolled press published very little about what was really going on in the halls of state power, this was considered the most reliable way to determine who was in or out of favor and, by extension, how the domestic and foreign policies of the world's second most powerful country were likely …
Picture This: Body Worn Video Devices ('Head Cams') As Tools For Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance By Police, David A. Harris
Picture This: Body Worn Video Devices ('Head Cams') As Tools For Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance By Police, David A. Harris
Articles
A new technology has emerged with the potential to increase police compliance with the law and to increase officers’ accountability for their conduct. Called “body worn video” (BWV) or “head cams,” these devices are smaller, lighter versions of the video and audio recording systems mounted on the dash boards of police cars. These systems are small enough that they consist of something the size and shape of a cellular telephone earpiece, and are worn by police officers the same way. Recordings are downloaded directly from the device into a central computer system for storage and indexing, which protects them from …
How Accountability-Based Policing Can Reinforce - Or Replace - The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, David A. Harris
How Accountability-Based Policing Can Reinforce - Or Replace - The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, David A. Harris
Articles
In Hudson v. Michigan, a knock-and-announce case, Justice Scalia's majority opinion came close to jettisoning the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The immense costs of the rule, Scalia said, outweigh whatever benefits might come from it. Moreover, police officers and police departments now generally follow the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, so the exclusionary rule has outlived the reasons that the Court adopted it in the first place. This viewpoint did not become the law because Justice Kennedy, one member of the five-vote majority, withheld his support from this section of the opinion. But the closeness of the vote on …
Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran
Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran
Articles
I have no idea whether my death will be noted in the New York Times. But if it is, I fear the headline of my obituary will look something like: "Professor Dies; Lost Hudson v. Michigan' in Supreme Court, Leading to Abolition of Exclusionary Rule." The very existence of this Symposium panel shows, I think, that my fear is well-grounded. On the other hand, I am not quite as fearful that Hudson foreshadows the complete overruling of Mapp v. Ohio2 and Weeks v. United States3 as I was when I published an article just three months after the Hudson decision …
Protecting The Citizen Whilst He Is Quiet: Suspicionless Searches, Special Needs And General Warrants, Scott E. Sundby
Protecting The Citizen Whilst He Is Quiet: Suspicionless Searches, Special Needs And General Warrants, Scott E. Sundby
Articles
No abstract provided.
'A Flame Of Fire': The Fourth Amendment In Perilous Times, John Burkoff
'A Flame Of Fire': The Fourth Amendment In Perilous Times, John Burkoff
Articles
The important questions we need to ask and to answer in the perilous times in which we live is whether the Fourth Amendment applies in the same fashion not just to run of the mill criminals, but also to terrorists and suspected terrorists, individuals who are committing or who have committed B or who may be poised to commit B acts aimed at the destruction of extremely large numbers of people? Professor Burkoff argues that we can protect ourselves from cataclysmic threats of this sort and still maintain a fair and objective application of Fourth Amendment doctrine that respects our …
In Defense Of The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule (Law And Truth - The Twenty-First Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium On Law And Public Policy - 2002), Yale Kamisar
Articles
think Dean Pye's advice about casebook writing was sound,6 and what he had to say also applies to discussions and debates about such issues as the search and seizure exclusionary rule. We cannot (at least we should not) begin with Mapp v. Ohio. We need a prelude.
Confessions, Search And Seizure And The Rehnquist Court, Yale Kamisar
Confessions, Search And Seizure And The Rehnquist Court, Yale Kamisar
Articles
About the time William Rehnquist ascended to the Chief Justiceship of the United States, two events occurred that increased the likelihood that Miranda would enjoy a long life. In Moran v. Burbine,' a 6-3 majority held that a confession preceded by an otherwise valid waiver of a suspect's Miranda rights should not be excluded either (a) because the police misled an inquiring attorney when they told her they were not going to question the suspect she called about or (b) because the police failed to inform the suspect of the attorney's efforts to reach him.
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Many commentators have observed that when we speak of "the Warren Court," we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1962 (when Arthur Goldberg replaced Felix Frankfurter) to 1969 (when Earl Warren retired). But when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1961 (when the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio was decided) to 1966 or 1967. In its final years, the Warren Court was not the same Court that had handed down Mapp or Miranda v. Arizona.
Remembering The 'Old World' Of Criminal Procedure: A Reply To Professor Grano, Yale Kamisar
Remembering The 'Old World' Of Criminal Procedure: A Reply To Professor Grano, Yale Kamisar
Articles
When I graduated from high school in 1961, the "old world" of criminal procedure still existed, albeit in its waning days; when I graduated from law school in 1968, circa the time most of today's first-year law students were arriving on the scene, the "new world" had fully dislodged the old. Indeed, the force of the new world's revolutionary impetus already had crested. Some of the change that the criminal procedure revolution effected was for the better, but much of it, at least as some of us see it, was decidedly for the worse. My students, however, cannot make the …
'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Articles
It is not . . . easy to see what the shock-the-conscience test adds, or should be allowed to add, to the deterrent function of exclusionary rules. Where no deterrence of unconstitutional police behavior is possible, a decision to exclude probative evidence with the result that a criminal goes free to prey upon the public should shock the judicial conscience even more than admitting the evidence. So spoke Judge Robert H. Bork, concurring in a ruling that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches conducted exclusively by foreign officials. A short time thereafter, when an interviewer …
Edward L. Barrett, Jr.: The Critic With 'That Quality Of Judiciousness Demanded Of The Court Itself', Yale Kamisar
Edward L. Barrett, Jr.: The Critic With 'That Quality Of Judiciousness Demanded Of The Court Itself', Yale Kamisar
Articles
Barrett was as talented and as dedicated a law teacher as any of his distinguished (or soon-to-become-distinguished) contemporaries. But Barrett resisted the movement toward new rights in fields where none had existed before. At least, he was quite uneasy about the trend. To be sure, others in law teaching shared Barrett's concern that the clock was spinning too fast. Indeed, some others were quite vociferous about it.' But because his criticism was cerebral rather than emotional - because he fairly stated and fully explored the arguments urging the courts to increase their tempo in developing constitutional rights - Barrett was …
Introduction: Trends And Developments With Respect To That Amendment 'Central To Enjoyment Of Other Guarantees Of The Bill Of Rights', Yale Kamisar
Articles
Seventy years ago, in the famous Weeks case,' the Supreme Court evoked a storm of controversy by promulgating the federal exclusionary rule. When, a half-century later, in the landmark Mapp case,2 the Court extended the Weeks rule to state criminal proceedings, at least one experienced observer assumed that the controversy "today finds its end." 3 But as we all know now, Mapp only intensified the controversy. Indeed, in recent years spirited debates over proposals to modify the exclusionary rule or to scrap it entirely have filled the air - and the law reviews.'
Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar
Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Illinois v. Gates1 was the most eagerly awaited constitutional-criminal procedure case of the 1982 Term. I think it fair to say, however, that it was awaited a good deal more eagerly by law enforcement officials and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement than by defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. As it turned out, of course, the Gates Court, to the disappointment of many, did not reach the question whether the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases should be modified so as not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment when …
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 …
How We Got The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule And Why We Need It, Yale Kamisar
How We Got The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule And Why We Need It, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Why the continuing storm of controversy over the exclusionary rule? Why the deep and widespread hostility to it? I think a recent law office search case, because it arose in a setting so unlike the typical search and seizure case, furnishes a clue. In O'Connor v. Johnson, St. Paul police obtained a warrant to search an attorney's office for business records of a client suspected of making false written statements in applying for a liquor license. The attorney happened to be present when the police arrived. Holding on to his work product file, which contained some of the records sought, …
Search And Seizure Of America: The Case For Keeping The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Search And Seizure Of America: The Case For Keeping The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Twenty years ago, concurring in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Justice William 0. Douglas looked back on Wolf v. Colorado (1949) (which had held that the Fourth Amendment's substantive protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" was binding on the states through the due process clause, but that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule was not) and recalled that the Wolf case had evoked "a storm of controversy which only today finds its end." But, of course, in the twenty years since Justice Douglas made that observation the storm of controversy has only intensified, and it has engulfed the exclusionary rule in federal …
The Exclusionary Rule In Historical Perspective: The Struggle To Make The Fourth Amendment More Than 'An Empty Blessing', Yale Kamisar
The Exclusionary Rule In Historical Perspective: The Struggle To Make The Fourth Amendment More Than 'An Empty Blessing', Yale Kamisar
Articles
In the 65 years since the Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule, few critics have attacked it with as much vigor and on as many fronts as did Judge Malcolm Wilkey in his recent Judicature article, "The exclusionary rule: why suppress valid evidence?" (November 1978).
A Defense Of The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
A Defense Of The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Articles
The exclusionary rule is being flayed with increasing vigor by a number of unrelated sources and with a variety of arguments. Some critics find it unworkable and resort to empirically based arguments. Others see it as the product of a belated and unwarranted judicial interpretation. Still others, uncertain whether the rule works, are confident that in some fashion law enforcement's hands are tied. Professor Yale Kamisar, long a defender of the exclusionary rule, reviews the current attacks on the rule and offers a vigorous rebuttal. He finds it difficult to accept that there is a line for acceptable police conduct …
Exclusionary Rule: Reasonable Remarks On Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Yale Kamisar
Exclusionary Rule: Reasonable Remarks On Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Can we live with the so-called exclusionary rule, which bars the use of illegally gained evidence in criminal trials? Can the Fourth Amendment live without it? A growing number of lawyers and judges, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, have called for abandonment of the rule, usually on the ground that it has not prevented illegal searches and seizures and on the ground that the rule has contributed significantly to the increase in crime. No one has convincingly demonstrated a causal link between the high rate of crime in America and the exclusionary rule, and I do not believe that any …
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
More than 50 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided the Weeks case, barring the use in federal prosecutions of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the Silverthorne case, invoking what has come to be known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The justices who decided those cases would, I think, be quite surprised to learn that some day the value of the exclusionary rule would be measured by-and the very life of the rule might depend on-an empirical evaluation of its efficacy in deterring police misconduct. These justices were engaged in a less …
Search And Seizure In Alaska: A Comprehensive Review, Jeff M. Feldman
Search And Seizure In Alaska: A Comprehensive Review, Jeff M. Feldman
Articles
In the eighteen years since Alaska achieved statehood, fifty-two cases involving issues of search and seizure have reached the Alaska Supreme Court. This article will analyze these cases with an eyetowards outlining the law of search and seizure in Alaska, isolating those areas in which the Alaska Supreme Court has departed from prevailing search and seizure doctrine, and using past decisions to predict the probable outcomes to search and seizure issues still unresolved in Alaska.
Compelling The Production Of Corporation Books And Papers, Edson R. Sunderland
Compelling The Production Of Corporation Books And Papers, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
Hale, the plaintiff in the case of Hale v. Henkel, supra, was served with a subpoena duces tecum, commanding him to produce before the grand jury all contracts, memoranda, correspondence, reports, letters, etc., having to do with the business of the MacAndrews & Forbes Company. He pleaded immunity from the operation of the subpoena under the 4th amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court held that an order for the production of books and papers may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the 4th amendment.