Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Good Policing Practices Are Difficult, Even For The Avengers, Melanie Reid

Cleveland State Law Review

Policing, as a topic, is complicated. Many have strong views as to what police should or should not be doing and how effectively they are doing it. Too often policing has become polarized with various perspectives disagreeing as to the future of policing. Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, and Policing Abolition movements are on one spectrum compared to the Blue Lives Matter Movement or other mayoral or police union initiatives. This is clearly a time to collaborate and learn from the various perspectives to bring hope and change in the future. Lawyers, academics, community members, and police officers alike …

Filling The Potholes Of Pretextual Traffic Stops: A Better Road Forward For Ohio, Jordan Weeks

Cleveland State Law Review

The Fourth Amendment was one of the driving forces behind the United States Revolution. This Amendment generally protects individuals against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. But what does “reasonable” mean in the context of a traffic stop?

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States tried answering this question. In so doing, the Court determined that pretextual traffic stops are “reasonable.” Pretextual traffic stops occur where an officer stops a vehicle and cites a lawful reason for the stop, yet the underlying reason is unlawful. The Whren Court determined that an officer’s intent is completely irrelevant to whether …

The War On Drugs: Moral Panic And Excessive Sentences, Michael Vitiello

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article …

No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court legalized DNA collection of all felony arrestees upon arrest through its decision in Maryland v. King. Since then, the State of Ohio has broadened the use of arrestee DNA by subjecting it to familial DNA searches. Ohio’s practice of conducting familial DNA searches of arrestee DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that is extracted from a familial DNA search and it fails both the totality of the circumstances and the special needs tests. Further, these tests go against the intention of the …

Failing To Keep The Cat In The Bag: A Decennial Assessment Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 502'S Impact On Forfeiture Of Legal Privilege Under Customary Waiver Doctrine, Jared S. Sunshine

Cleveland State Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 502—providing certain exemptions from the surrender of attorney-client and work product privilege because a confidential item was disclosed—had great expectations to live up to after its enactment in 2008, as Congress and others heralded it as a panacea to litigation’s woes in the face of bourgeoning discovery. The enacted rule was the subject of much skepticism by the academic punditocracy, however. Ten years later, this Article surveys the actual results and finds that, regrettably, pessimism has proven the better prediction. Percolation of debate over the rule’s many ambiguities and courts’ disparate approaches have not resolved initial …

Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones

Cleveland State Law Review

Courts are divided as to whether law enforcement can collect cell phone location information in real-time without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment prior to law enforcement’s collection of real-time cell phone location information. Courts that have required a warrant prior to the government’s collection of real-time cell phone location information have considered the length of surveillance. This should not be a factor. The growing prevalence and usage of cell phones and cell phone technology, the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, and United States …

Nearsighted And Colorblind: The Perspective Problems Of Police Deadly Force Cases, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Cleveland State Law Review

In dealing with the recently publicized instances of police officers’ use of deadly force, some reform efforts have been focused on the entities that are central to the successful prosecutions of police—the prosecutor and the grand jury. Some have suggested special, independent prosecutors for these cases so that the process of deciding whether to seek charges against police officers remains untainted by the necessary cooperative relationship between the police department and the prosecutor’s office. Others have urged more transparency in the grand jury process so that the public can scrutinize a prosecutor’s efforts in presenting evidence for an indictment. Still …

Game Of Phones: The Fourth Amendment Implications Of Real-Time Cell Phone Tracking, Cal Cumpstone

Cleveland State Law Review

With the help of technological advancements, law enforcement can now hijack a targeted individual’s cell phone to ping and track the phone’s exact location in real time. Based upon previous rulings, this new tracking process has apparently fallen into a "grey area" of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. However, real-time cell phone tracking should be a search in terms of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, require a warrant. Real-time cell phone tracking infringes on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, violates the trespass doctrine as a trespass to chattels, and violates the Kyllo standard by using technology not in general public use …

Drug Testing, Welfare, And The Special Needs Doctrine: An Argument In Support Of Drug Testing Tanf Recipients, Brianna W. Mclaughlin

Cleveland State Law Review

In 1996, Congress considered situations of children like Michael Oher when they overhauled the welfare program through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). One of the PRWORA’s goals is to protect children in homes receiving welfare benefits. A crucial step in the Congressional plan was authorizing states to drug test welfare recipients as a condition to receiving benefits. With this grant of authority, states enacted legislation to implement drug testing programs to protect children in welfare receiving homes from the dangers of drug addicted parents. In 2011, over thirty-six states proposed legislation requiring drug testing of welfare …

Computer Searches And Seizure, Donald Resseguie

Cleveland State Law Review

This note will discuss legal issues related to search and seizure of computers and define the trend that the law is taking in the emerging area of inquiry. Personal privacy protection will be adequate regarding computer searches and seizures only if the courts properly balance the government's interests in bringing criminals to justice against citizens' interests against overly broad inquiries into the personal affairs. Section II provides a limited general discussion of constitutional limitations on search and seizure. Section III will discuss search and seizure of computers in the context of the "plain view" doctrine as an exception to the …

Crimes And Errors Impossible To Commit: Defining Away The Fourth Amendment - Wyoming V. Houghton, Rachel Gader-Shafran

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note contends that the Court's decision to adopt the Houghton approach to the automobile warrant exception is problematic for three reasons. First, the Court has erroneously interpreted the historical evidence behind the creation of the Fourth Amendment. Second, the Court, by chipping away at stare decisis, is disrupting the foundations of American jurisprudence and the development of the law. Third, by creating a new lexicon, changing the meanings of the words, the Court is trying to define away the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. This Note will briefly summarize the facts of Houghton and review the historical purpose …

Fourth Amendment Standing: Flat On Its Face, Wallace W. Sherwood

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has recently reevaluated its concept of standing for claims involving violations of the fourth amendment. The apparent purpose for reevaluation of this fundamental constitutional principle was the Court's desire to respond to the debate currently raging over the scope of the exclusionary rule. Whether one perceives the fourth amendment as second to none in importance in the Bill of Rights or views it as a nuisance is not the issue here. Rather, the issue is whether, in its effort to limit the exclusionary rule, the Court has stripped the people of the United States of …

Fourth Amendment Right Or Fourth Amendment Wrong: Ins Power After The Immigration Reform And Control Act Of 1986, Steven L. Miller

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the legal system's scrutiny of the fourth amendment implications of INS workplace sweeps and suggests that the recent adoption of the IRCA (Immigration Reform and Control Act) and its criminal sanctions dictate the development of a higher standard for upholding the constitutionality of workplace raids. Consideration is first given to the type of INS activity which is under scrutiny in the course of a workplace sweep. Next, Part III will examine the development of case law pertaining to the current power of the INS to constitutionally conduct workplace sweeps under the fourth amendment. Part IV will then …

Seizures Of The Fourth Kind: Changing The Rules, Harry M. Caldwell

Cleveland State Law Review

While a large percentage of police-citizen encounters may be classified readily as falling within the protections of the fourth amendment, a number of them are difficult to categorize. Since the decision in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court has been grappling with the issue of when such encounters do, in fact, mandate fourth amendment protection. The Court's most recent pronouncement in this area, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, involved an Immigration and Naturalization Service factory sweep and the ensuing encounter between immigration officials and plant employees. In this significant and controversial opinion, the Court found that the Delgado …

United States V. Robinson, Thomas E. Downey Jr., Patrick J. Alcox, Thomas F. Harper, Michael Kieffer

Cleveland State Law Review

This article provides an overview of fourth amendment litigation that focused on the question of what constitutes an “unreasonable” search. The Supreme Court had previously provided guidance in Terry v. Ohio and Chimel v. California. This article provides a brief overview of these cases, and then it turns to more thoroughly examine the decision in US v. Robinson.

Katz And The Fourth Amendment: A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Or, A Man's Home Is His Fort, Richard L. Aynes

Cleveland State Law Review

While there are a great many cases and commentaries treating fourth amendment rights, little attention has been given to the circumstances that must exist in order for it to be said that a search and seizure has taken place. The purpose of this note is to explore the issues involved in determining when the conduct of law enforcement officers constitutes a search and seizure. Consideration will be given to Katz v. United States, which established the test to be applied in making this determination; to the application of Katz and its effect upon fourth amendment protections; to alternatives for the …

Airport Searches And The Right To Travel: Some Constitutional Questions, Donald Applestein

Cleveland State Law Review

Historically the constitutional right to travel has arisen in two contexts. First, it has arisen within the context of the competing interests of the individual to travel internationally and the interest in national security. The other is that in which an individual wishes to travel to some area, and the government restricts that right in an effort to protect the persons in the area to which the individual wishes to travel. However, under the current airport screening procedures the right to travel may be being restricted or interfered with in another context: prevention and detection of criminal activity. This note …

Fourth Amendment Limitations On Eavesdropping And Wire-Tapping, David H. Hines

Cleveland State Law Review

The subject of eavesdropping, wiretapping, and electronic surveillance has induced many legal writers to comment on the law and urge legislative changes.This paper will analyze the constitutional aspects of eavesdropping as well as the common law concerning eavesdropping as it exists today.