Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Inevitable Discovery In Washington State And The Unreasonable "Reasonableness" Requirement, David Seaver
Inevitable Discovery In Washington State And The Unreasonable "Reasonableness" Requirement, David Seaver
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment will examine the substantial differences between Division One's current version of inevitable discovery and that adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nix, which is still the only version affirmatively accepted by the Washington Supreme Court. Having distinguished the differences, this Comment ultimately suggests an amalgamation of the most desirable parts of each version of the inevitable discovery exception. The author proposes that the "reasonableness" element demanded by Division One is duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome on the prosecution. The version proposed by this Comment recognizes the potential benefits to the search for truth and to the societal …
The Plain Feel Doctrine In Washington: An Opportunity To Provide Greater Protections Of Privacy To Citizens Of This State, Laura T. Bradley
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 …
Dismantling The Exclusionary Rule: United States V. Leon And The Courts Of Washington—Should Good Faith Excuse Bad Acts?, Catherine Cruikshank
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.