Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Criminal Procedure (7)
- Criminal Law (6)
- Evidence (5)
- Supreme Court of the United States (4)
-
- Judges (3)
- State and Local Government Law (3)
- Courts (2)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legislation (2)
- National Security Law (2)
- Communications Law (1)
- Computer Law (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Fourth Amendment (6)
- Search (5)
- Terry v. Ohio (5)
- Fourth amendment (4)
- Supreme Court (4)
-
- Law (3)
- Police (3)
- Warrant (3)
- Camara v. Municipal Court (2)
- Carroll v. United States (2)
- Cell (2)
- Criminal law (2)
- Criminal procedure (2)
- Doctrine (2)
- Double jeopardy (2)
- Due process (2)
- Enforcement (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Expectation (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Michigan v. Long (2)
- Miranda (2)
- Monitoring (2)
- Privacy (2)
- Rights (2)
- Searches (2)
- Seizure (2)
- Surveillance (2)
- Technology (2)
- United States (2)
Articles 1 - 23 of 23
Full-Text Articles in Fourth Amendment
Excessive Force: A Feasible Proximate Cause Approach, Latasha M. James
Excessive Force: A Feasible Proximate Cause Approach, Latasha M. James
University of Richmond Law Review
Through an analysis of the statutory and case law surrounding the use of excessive force, this Comment will review how differentiating applications of the law have led to varying and sometimes unjust results. Jurisdictions differ regarding what pre-shooting conduct can be considered, what the “objective reasonableness” standard encompasses, and how tort law should impact this analysis. Therefore, this Comment works to provide a framework for the consistent application of the objective reasonableness standard. Part I reviews the proscribed levels of force, noting when the use of force becomes excessive, and discusses the tort concept of proximate cause and how the …
Katz V. United States: Back To The Future?, Michael Vitiello
Katz V. United States: Back To The Future?, Michael Vitiello
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Preventing An Air Panopticon: A Proposal For Reasonable Legal Restrictions On Aerial Surveillance, Jake Laperruque
Preventing An Air Panopticon: A Proposal For Reasonable Legal Restrictions On Aerial Surveillance, Jake Laperruque
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Digital Technology And Analog Law: Cellular Location Data, The Third-Party Doctrine, And The Law's Need To Evolve, Justin Hill
Digital Technology And Analog Law: Cellular Location Data, The Third-Party Doctrine, And The Law's Need To Evolve, Justin Hill
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Purpose Of The Fourth Amendment And Crafting Rules To Implement That Purpose, Thomas K. Clancy
The Purpose Of The Fourth Amendment And Crafting Rules To Implement That Purpose, Thomas K. Clancy
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins
The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins
University of Richmond Law Review
In this essay, I contend that when evaluating the constitutionality of enhanced surveillance devices, the existing test for assessing the occurrence of a Fourth Amendment search should be modified. Specifically, I suggest that intrusiveness should be unambiguously adopted by the Court as the benchmark for assessing and defining the existence of a search under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, intrusiveness should be clearly defined to require an examination of two factors: the functionality of a challenged form of surveillance and the potential for disclosure created by the device.
Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall
Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall
University of Richmond Law Review
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …
Groh V. Ramirez: Strengthening The Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement, Weakening Qualified Immunity, C. Brandon Rash
Groh V. Ramirez: Strengthening The Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement, Weakening Qualified Immunity, C. Brandon Rash
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough
Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard
Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Usual Suspects Beware: "Walk, Don't Run" Through Dangerous Neighborhoods, Margaret Anne Hoehl
Usual Suspects Beware: "Walk, Don't Run" Through Dangerous Neighborhoods, Margaret Anne Hoehl
University of Richmond Law Review
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is "designed 'to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals." The Amendment is currently interpreted as consisting of two separate clauses, the first generally prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and the second requiring the establishment of probable cause prior to the issuance of a warrant. Hence, only those government searches and seizures requiring a warrant necessitate the establishment of probable cause, and all other searches and seizures simply need to be "reasonable."
Better-Off Walking: Wyoming V. Houghton Exemplifies What Acevedo Failed To Rectify, Erin Morris Meadows
Better-Off Walking: Wyoming V. Houghton Exemplifies What Acevedo Failed To Rectify, Erin Morris Meadows
University of Richmond Law Review
Over the years the United States Supreme Court attempted to produce bright-line rules governing the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. However, the Court's numerous, often confusing decisions in the past eight decades served only to blur those lines. With each attempt to fashion rules that would be workable for both law enforcement in application and lower courts in administration, citizens' Fourth Amendment rights were narrowed. Each time the Court attempted to clarify a rule, it expanded police power to conduct virtually limitless warrantless searches, consistently eviscerating personal privacy rights. The result is an exception originally intended to …
Abrogating The Exclusionary Rule Outside Of The Criminal Trial Context? Pennsylvania Board Of Probation & Parole V. Scott: One Step Closer To A Per Se Rule In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Richard F. Dzubin
University of Richmond Law Review
As citizens of the United States, most of us would abhor warrantless police intrusion into our homes. The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. When unaccompanied by a valid search warrant, a search of a residence is presumptively unreasonable. Thus, the law proscribes overly-aggressive investigatory methods that trammel the rights of American citizens. What happens, however, when the protected right belongs to a paroled felon suspected of violating the conditions of his parole? In Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, the United States Supreme Court refused to extend to parolees the remedies which are …
Liberty From Officials By Grace: The Fourth Amendment's Application To Automobile Passengers In Maryland V. Wilson, Michael Begland
Liberty From Officials By Grace: The Fourth Amendment's Application To Automobile Passengers In Maryland V. Wilson, Michael Begland
University of Richmond Law Review
On February 19, 1997, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Maryland v. Wilson, and put an end to twenty years of speculation regarding a police officer's authority to order a passenger out of a lawfully stopped automobile. In finding that such an order does not violate a passenger's Fourth Amendment privacy interests, the Supreme Court reversed Maryland's Court of Special Appeals and sided with the majority of states that have considered this narrow issue. The Court's decision provides important insight into the current state of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to sacrifice …
Reasonable Articulable Suspicion - The Demise Of Terry V. Ohio And Individualized Suspicion, Esther Jeanette Windmueller
Reasonable Articulable Suspicion - The Demise Of Terry V. Ohio And Individualized Suspicion, Esther Jeanette Windmueller
University of Richmond Law Review
The plethora of law review articles and cases on search and seizure demonstrates the confusion and frustration in fourth amendment stop-and-frisk jurisprudence. The fourth amendment to the Constitution guarantees that persons will be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures . . . and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause." A "stop-and-frisk" is a warrantless detention and search of a person by a police officer to investigate for unlawfulness. Although the United States Supreme Court has issued many investigative stop decisions, the Court has failed to promulgate a coherent and practical stop-and-frisk procedure for law enforcement personnel to follow. …
Thoughts On Rodriguez: Mr. Justice Powell And The Demise Of Equal Protection Analysis In The Supreme Court, Larry W. Yackle
Thoughts On Rodriguez: Mr. Justice Powell And The Demise Of Equal Protection Analysis In The Supreme Court, Larry W. Yackle
University of Richmond Law Review
Continuity with the Warren Court jurisprudence is not a duty but only a necessity. The necessity is not to follow precedent blindly, but to explain the reasons for departure from it and to justify, again by reason rather than personal predilection, the results reached in every case.
The Emergency Exception To The Fourth Amendment, Ronald J. Bacigal
The Emergency Exception To The Fourth Amendment, Ronald J. Bacigal
University of Richmond Law Review
Although an emergency or exigent circumstance is frequently cited as one justification for a search without a warrant,' "the contours of this exception have not developed and. . . [the Supreme Court] .. .has never pinned it down to a workable and effective meaning. Some of the ambiguity surrounding the emergency exception is attributable to the use of the single term "emergency" to embody several distinct concepts. An emergency can be defined broadly as the basic justification for all warrantless searches, or it may refer to a single type of warrantless search separate and distinct from other recognized warrantless searches. …
Search And Seizure- Knowledge Of Fourth Amendment Rights Not A Prerequisite To A Valid Consent Search
University of Richmond Law Review
The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, guarantees to every citizen the indefeasible right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a response to a long history of English colonial abuses, the fourth amendment was intended by the drafters of the Bill of Rights to be a safeguard against governmental misuse of the writs of assistance' and the general warrant. The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the constitutional mandate of the fourth amendment as proscribing all searches and seizures which do not comply with its stringent provisions. However, certain …
Search And Seizure- Permissible Scope Of A Search Incident To A Valid Custodial Arrest
Search And Seizure- Permissible Scope Of A Search Incident To A Valid Custodial Arrest
University of Richmond Law Review
While the fourth amendment does not make a warrant mandatory for all searches, it does require that all searches meet the test of reasonableness. The search incident to a lawful arrest is one of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement. The incidental search doctrine and the exclusionary rule were first discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States. The Supreme Court's failure to enunciate definitive standards in defining the permissible scope of a search incident to an arrest has created numerous problems for the courts and police. The limitations on the permissible scope of a …
The Background Of The Fourth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States, Part Two, Joseph J. Stengel
The Background Of The Fourth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States, Part Two, Joseph J. Stengel
University of Richmond Law Review
Upon the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and after the proposed Constitution was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification, there arose a clamor concerning the absence of a bill or declaration of rights therein. Scholars have disagreed as to the basis for this controversy. Story says that the demand was "a matter of very exaggerated declamation and party zeal, for the mere purpose of defeating the Constitution." Cooley concludes that leading statesmen made the want of a bill of rights in the Constitution the ground of a "decided, earnest, and formidable opposition to the confirmation of …
The Background Of The Fourth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States, Joseph J. Stengel
The Background Of The Fourth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States, Joseph J. Stengel
University of Richmond Law Review
It is generally agreed that the antecedent history of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is concerned primarily with those events that took place in England and the AmericanColonies in the thirty years immediately preceding the adoption of the Amendment. However, it also seems clear that it was the executive abuse of search and seizure in England throughout the centuries that led to those events. The search for the reason "why" of the Fourth Amendment should then logically begin with the earliest recorded events, statutes and cases involving search and seizure in English history and be …