Evidence Commons^™

The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar

Articles

A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …

Network Investigation Techniques: Government Hacking And The Need For Adjustment In The Third-Party Doctrine, Eduardo R. Mendoza

St. Mary's Law Journal

Modern society is largely dependent on technology, and legal discovery is no longer limited to hard-copy, tangible documents. The clash of technology and the law is an exciting, yet dangerous phenomena; dangerous because our justice system desperately needs technological progress. The clash between scientific advancement and the search for truth has recently taken an interesting form—government hacking. The United States Government has increasingly used Network Investigation Techniques (NITs) to target suspects in criminal investigations. NITs operate by identifying suspects who have taken affirmative steps to conceal their identity while browsing the Internet. The hacking technique has become especially useful to …

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

The Admissibility Of Confessions Compelled By Foreign Coercion: A Compelling Question Of Values In An Era Of Increasing International Criminal Cooperation, Geoffrey S. Corn, Kevin Cieply

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article proceeds on a simple and clear premise: a confession extracted by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment should never be admitted into evidence in a U.S. criminal trial. Whether accomplished through extending the Due Process or Self-Incrimination based exclusionary rules to foreign official coercion, or by legislative action, such exclusion is necessary to align evidentiary practice regarding confessions procured by foreign agents with our nation's fundamental values as reflected in the Fifth Amendment and our ratification of the CAT. This outcome is not incompatible with Connelly. Rather, this Article explores the limits of the Court's language in …

It's Reasonable To Expect Privacy When Watching Adult Videos, Matthew Leonhardt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inevitable Discovery: An Exception Beyond The Fruits, Robert Bloom

Robert Bloom

No abstract provided.

It Is Broken: Breaking The Inertia Of The Exclusionary Rule, L. Timothy Perrin, H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule: Fix It, But Fix It Right - A Critique Of If It's Broken, Fix It: Moving Beyond The Exclusionary Rule, Gregory D. Totten, Peter D. Kossoris, Ebbe B. Ebbesen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Administrative Replacements: How Much Can They Do?, Laurie L. Levenson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Move Beyond The Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response To Legislative Reform Efforts, Harold J. Krent

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Moving Further Beyond, Thomas M. Reavley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Invitation To Dialogue: Exploring The Pepperdine Proposal To Move Beyond The Exclusionary Rule, L. Timothy Perrin, H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Davis V. United States: Good Faith, Retroactivity, And The Loss Of Principle, David Mcaloon

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inevitable Discovery: An Exception Beyond The Fruits, Robert M. Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Investigatory Reports In § 1983 Civil Rights Actions - A User's Manual, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Expanding The Scope Of The Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule To Include A Law Enforcement Officer's Reasonable Reliance On Well-Settled Case Law That Is Subsequently Overruled , Ross M. Oklewicz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part …

Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule, which bars from admission evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, is a bedrock of American law. It is highly controversial, but there seems to be no equally effective way to protect citizens' rights. This paper proposes that an admissibility standard be adopted that is in keeping with virtually every jurisdiction around the world other than the United States. Thus, before ruling evidence inadmissible, the court would consider the level of the constitutional violation, the seriousness of the crime, whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the …

Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule is back under the judicial magnifying glass. Recent opinions, most notably by Justice Scalia, have sparked speculation that the Roberts Court is inclined to overrule Mapp v. Ohio and send Fourth Amendment disputes back to the realm of civil suits and police disciplinary actions. As the Court's rulings have made clear, any reevaluation of the exclusionary rule's future will be conducted under the now familiar rubric of whether the rule's "benefit" of deterring police misbehavior outweighs the "cost" of lost evidence and convictions.

This essay argues that if any such reevaluation does occur, the Court must take …

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 …

Hudson And Samson: The Roberts Court Confronts Privacy, Dignity, And The Fourth Amendment, John D. Castiglione

ExpressO

This article critically analyzes Samson v. California and Hudson v. Michigan, which were the Roberts Court's first major Fourth Amendment decisions. In Samson, the Court upheld a California law allowing government officials to search parolees without any suspicion of wrongdoing. In Hudson, to the surprise of almost every observer, the Court held that knock-and-announce violations do not carry with them a remedy of exclusion. What was most notable about Hudson was not only that it rejected what every state and every federal court, save one, believed to be the proper remedy for knock-and-announce violations, but that it called into question …

Admissibility Of Investigatory Reports In § 1983 Civil Rights Actions - A User's Manual, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Plain Feel Doctrine In Washington: An Opportunity To Provide Greater Protections Of Privacy To Citizens Of This State, Laura T. Bradley

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that Washington should return to an independent analysis of search and seizure doctrine under article I, section 7 of the state constitution and reject the admission of contraband seized during the course of a pat-down frisk. The decisions in Hudson and Dickerson have established an unnecessary and unworkable standard, and involve an increased invasion of personal privacy without the counter-balancing need to protect the safety of others. The plain feel doctrine as announced in Dickerson and Hudson developed from two well-established concepts in search and seizure law-the Terry frisk of persons to discover weapons and the plain …

The Consent Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Doctrine Of Inevitable Discovery: A Plea For Reasonable Limitations, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In reinstating the Iowa murder conviction of Robert Williams, the Supreme Court accepted explicitly for the first time the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Applied for some time by state and federal courts, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is a means by which evidence obtained illegally can still be admitted against defendants in criminal cases. Unfortunately, the Court chose to adopt the doctrine without any of the safeguards necessary to insure that the deterrent impact of the exclusionary rule would be preserved, and in a form that is subject to and almost invites abuse.

This article warns of the danger to …

Dismantling The Exclusionary Rule: United States V. Leon And The Courts Of Washington—Should Good Faith Excuse Bad Acts?, Catherine Cruikshank

Seattle University Law Review

This Note will review briefly the history of the exclusionary rule under fourth amendment jurisprudence, with special emphasis given to the purposes the rule has traditionally been thought to serve. The significance of the Leon decision then will be examined in light of the emergence in Washington of an interpretation of article I, section 7 that diverges from the Supreme Court's interpretations of the fourth amendment. This Note will conclude by discussing how article I, section 7 continues to embody the several purposes traditionally served by the exclusionary rule.

Assaults On The Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith Limitations And Damage Remedies, Pierre J. Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Scientific Investigation And Defendants' Rights, B. J. George Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Advances in science, medicine and industry have made much of the world a more pleasant place in which to live. In general more men are living a physically more satisfying life in more comfortable surroundings than preceding generations. But with this has come a parallel increase in criminality to the point that the term "crime wave" is heard with increasing frequency. Many crimes are facilitated in their commission by adaption or application of new scientific discoveries by criminal elements. A natural consequence is that already overburdened police departments turn as quickly as is financially possible to new scientific techniques in …

Judge And The Crime Burden, John Barker Waite

Michigan Law Review

One does not happily charge the judiciary with responsibility for the country's burden of crime, but the responsibility does in fact exist. Judges, though they may not encourage crime, interfere with its prevention in various ways. They deliberately restrict police efficiency in the discovery of criminals. They exempt from punishment many criminals who are discovered and whose guilt is evident. More seriously still, they so warp and alter the public's attitude toward crime and criminals as gravely to weaken the country's most effective crime preventive.