Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Turning A Government Search Into A Permanent Power: Thornton V. United States And The "Progressive Distortion" Of Search Incident To Arrest, George M. Dery Iii, Michael J. Hernandez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Storming The Castle To Save The Children: The Ironic Costs Of A Child Welfare Exception To The Fourth Amendment, Doriane Lambelet Coleman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Revamped Fisa: Striking A Better Balance Between The Government's Need To Protect Itself And The 4th Amendment, J. Christopher Champion

Vanderbilt Law Review

The investigations of the 9/11 terrorist attacks highlighted a series of lapses in intelligence-sharing within the federal government regarding terrorist operations. One area closely examined by Congress,' the judiciary, and many legal and political commentators is the appropriate scope of intelligence collection within the United States "concerning foreign threats to the nation's security" ("foreign intelligence"). Domestic intelligence collection is a particularly complex sphere of national security as gathering intelligence on American soil requires balancing the privacy rights of individuals guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment against the nation's need to protect itself.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA") governs …

Using Suppression Hearing Testimony To Prove Good Faith Under United States V. Leon, John E. Taylor

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Federalism? The Court's Vacillating Mistrust And Trust Of State Search And Seizure Laws, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Form Over Substance? Qualified Immunity In Groh V. Ramirez, Lenard F. Harrelson Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In Groh v. Ramirez, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a search warrant may be so facially defective that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. The Court reasoned that the warrant deficiency in this case, revolving around the particularity requirement, flows directly from the text of the Fourth Amendment, and thus, no reasonable officer could believe a warrant that obviously did not comply with this standard was valid. The Court proceeded to deny the executing officer qualified immunity by holding that reliance upon this facially defective warrant was objectively unreasonable. …

To Serve And Protect: Thornton V. United States And The Newly Anemic Fourth Amendment, Jason Lewis

Mercer Law Review

In Thornton v. United States, the United States Supreme Court further weakened the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment by holding that an officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest even when the suspect is first approached after exiting the vehicle. Under the guise of providing protection to police officers, this decision greatly expands the power of an arresting officer to search the private property of the arrestee and creates uncertainty on what constitutional limits apply to searches incident to arrest outside the home.

Navigating Communications Regulation In The Wake Of 9/11, Jamie S. Gorelick, John H. Harwood Ii, Heather Zachary

Federal Communications Law Journal

In no industry has the impact of the events of September 11, 2001 ("9/11") been felt more strongly than in the communications industry. After 9/11, as the American people demanded a greater sense of security, Congress and the executive branch agencies reacted with new laws, new regulations, and new practices designed to protect our nation's critical communications infrastructure and enhance the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate those who would do us harm. The U.S. communications providers could do so consistent with their responsibilities to customers and to shareholders. That partnership, based upon rules developed over decades, …

Equality, Objectivity, And Neutrality, Alafair S. Burke

Michigan Law Review

When is homicide reasonable? That familiar, yet unanswered question continues to intrigue both courts and criminal law scholars, in large part because any response must first address the question, "reasonable to whom?" The standard story about why that threshold question is both difficult and interesting usually involves a juxtaposition of "objective" and "subjective" standards for judging claims of reasonableness. On the one hand, the story goes, is a "subjective" standard of reasonableness under which jurors evaluate the reasonableness of a criminal defendant's beliefs and actions by comparing them to those of a hypothetical reasonable person sharing all of the individual …

Reconciling Consent Searches And Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: Incorporating Privacy Into The Test For Valid Consent Searches, David J. Housholder

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Perhaps the most significant exception to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment is the consent search, which requires no warrant, exigent circumstances, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.

Some scholars have suggested that the Supreme Court's voluntariness standard for determining consensual searches misperceives …

Constitutional Law—The Fourth Amendment Challenge To Dna Sampling Of Arrestees Pursuant To The Justice For All Act Of 2004: A Proposed Modification To The Traditional Fourth Amendment Test Of Reasonableness, Kimberly A. Polanco

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unconstitutionality Of "Hold Until Cleared": Reexamining Material Witness Detentions In The Wake Of The September 11th Dragnet, Ricardo J. Bascuas

Vanderbilt Law Review

On March 11, 2004, terrorists affiliated with the Al Qaida networkl detonated bombs on four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 people and injuring 2,000 others. Hours later, the Spanish National Police (SNP) recovered a fingerprint from a bag of detonators found in a stolen van parked at a station from which three of the bombed trains departed. The SNP requested assistance from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify the owner of the print. FBI experts concluded that the print belonged to Brandon Mayfield, a U.S. citizen living in a suburb of Portland, Oregon, and the …

Identity Crisis: United States V. Hiibel And The Continued Erosion Of Privacy Rights, Beth Rosenblum

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Expanding Terry: Compulsory Identification In Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court, Humbolt County , Trevor Hickey

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Rights At United States Borders, Jon Adams

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Nothing New Under The Sun? A Technologically Rational Doctrine Of Fourth Amendment Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Mercer Law Review

In late 2002 the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") launched an ill-named, if not entirely ill-advised, data-mining initiative as part of its response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Under the direction of Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter, infamous for his role in Iran-Contra, DARPA dubbed the program "Total Information Awareness" ("TIA). The goal was to amalgamate a mammoth database of existing commercial and governmental information, from Internet mail and calling records to banking transactions and travel documents, which would be analyzed by a to-be developed computer system capable of spotting suspicious behavior

The Continuity Principle, Administrative Constraint, And The Fourth Amendment, Harold J. Krent

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Patriotic Dissent, Susan Herman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Running In Place: The Paradox Of Expanding Rights And Restricted Remedies, David Rudovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Police Shootings Under The Fourth Amendment, Wayne C. Beyer

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

The Fourth Amendment permits police to use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. Although the governing standard is well established in a general way, its application to particular facts and circumstances may not be clear to officers on the street. Unless a reasonable police officer would have understood that his/her decision to shoot was clearly constitutionally prohibited, the officer may be entitled to qualified immunity, a decision that the court can make on summary judgment before trial. Discussed first are shootings that are not subject to Fourth Amendment …

Faith-Based Miranda: Why The New Missouri V. Seibert Police Bad Faith Test Is A Terrible Idea, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Since When Is Dicta Enough To Trump Fourth Amendment Rights? The Aftermath Of Florida V. J.L., Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Unfortunately for individual liberty, and the inestimable right to personal security, the Supreme Court's extraneous language in its otherwise, well-reasoned decision in Florida v. J.L., and the lower federal courts' interpretation of that extraneous language, have jeopardized the Constitutional right to be free from capricious stops and frivolous frisks, both of which necessarily intrude on the sanctity of the person and sometimes "inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment . . . ." When read logically and narrowly, the J.L. decision holds that an anonymous telephone tip, alone, does not give law enforcement a sufficient legal basis to stop or …

Hints Of The Future?: John Roberts, Jr.'S Fourth Amendment Cases As An Appellate Judge, Thomas K. Clancy

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transaction Surveillance By The Government, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This symposium article is the second of two on regulation of government efforts to obtain recorded information for criminal prosecutions. More specifically, it explores the scope and regulation of "transaction surveillance," which it defines as government attempts to access already existing records, either physically or through data banks, and government efforts to obtain, in real-time or otherwise, "catalogic data" (the identifying signals of a transaction, such as the address of an email recipient). Transaction surveillance is a potent way of discovering and making inferences about a person's activities, character and identity. Yet, despite a bewildering array of statutorily created authorization …

Police Shootings Under The Fourth Amendment, Wayne C. Beyer

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

The Fourth Amendment permits police to use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. Although the governing standard is well established in a general way, its application to particular facts and circumstances may not be clear to officers on the street. Unless a reasonable police officer would have understood that his/her decision to shoot was clearly constitutionally prohibited, the officer may be entitled to qualified immunity, a decision that the court can make on summary judgment before trial. Discussed first are shootings that are not subject to Fourth Amendment …

American Courts Are Drowning In The "Gene Pool": Excavating The Slippery Slope Mechanisms Behind Judicial Endorsement Of Dna Databases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2005), Meghan Riley

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Groh V. Ramirez: Strengthening The Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement, Weakening Qualified Immunity, C. Brandon Rash

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Lone Wolf Amendment And The Future Of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law, Patricia L. Bellia

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment—Knock And Announce: The Ninth Circuit Knocks And The Supreme Court Announces A Re-Emphasis On The Case-By-Case Analysis.United States V. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003), Erin Elizabeth Cassinelli

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unconstitutional Courses, Frederic M. Bloom

Publications

By now, we almost expect Congress to fail. Nearly every time the federal courts announce a controversial decision, Congress issues a call to rein in "runaway" federal judges. And nearly every time Congress makes a "jurisdiction-stripping" threat, it comes to nothing.

But if Congress's threats possess little fire, we have still been distracted by their smoke. This Article argues that Congress's noisy calls have obscured another potent threat to the "judicial Power": the Supreme Court itself. On occasion, this Article asserts, the Court reshapes and abuses the "judicial Power"--not through bold pronouncements or obvious doctrinal revisions, but through something more …