Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Due process (2)
- Administrative (1)
- Asset (1)
- Civil (1)
- Constitution (1)
-
- Constitutional (1)
- Criminal (1)
- Determinate-plus sentencing (1)
- Disciplinary hearings (1)
- Disciplinary sanction (1)
- Due process analysis (1)
- Forfeited (1)
- Forfeiture (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Government (1)
- Idaho case law (1)
- Incarceration (1)
- Indeterminate sentence review board (1)
- Isrb (1)
- Justice (1)
- Kentucky case law (1)
- Legal (1)
- Mathews v. eldridge (1)
- Mental health (1)
- Motive (1)
- Nonjudicial (1)
- Officer (1)
- Police (1)
- Preponderance (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law Enforcement and Corrections
Reasonable In Time, Unreasonable In Scope: Maximizing Fourth Amendment Protections Under Rodriguez V. United States, Thomas Heiden
Reasonable In Time, Unreasonable In Scope: Maximizing Fourth Amendment Protections Under Rodriguez V. United States, Thomas Heiden
Washington Law Review
In Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer may not conduct a drug dog sniff after the completion of a routine traffic stop because doing so extends the stop without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures. Tracing the background of Rodriguez from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Terry v. Ohio, this Comment argues that Rodriguez is best understood as a reaction to the continued erosion of Fourth Amendment protections in the investigative stop context. Based on that understanding, this Comment argues for a strict reading of Rodriguez, …
A Call To Abolish Determinate-Plus Sentencing In Washington, Rachel Stenberg
A Call To Abolish Determinate-Plus Sentencing In Washington, Rachel Stenberg
Washington Law Review
For certain incarcerated individuals who commit sex offenses, Washington State’s determinate-plus sentencing structure requires a showing of rehabilitation before release. This highly subjective “releasability” determination occurs after an individual has already served a standard sentence. A review of recent releasability determinations reveals sentences are often extended on arbitrary and inconsistent grounds—especially for individuals who face systemic challenges in prison due to their identity or condition. This Comment shows that the criteria to determine whether individuals are releasable is an incomplete picture of their actual experience in the carceral setting, using the distinct example of incarcerated individuals with mental illness. While …
Due Process In Prison Disciplinary Hearings: How The “Some Evidence” Standard Of Proof Violates The Constitution, Emily Parker
Due Process In Prison Disciplinary Hearings: How The “Some Evidence” Standard Of Proof Violates The Constitution, Emily Parker
Washington Law Review
Prison disciplinary hearings have wide-reaching impacts on an incarcerated individual’s liberty. A sanction following a guilty finding is a consequence that stems from hearings and goes beyond mere punishment. Guilty findings for serious infractions, like a positive result on a drug test, can often result in a substantial increase in prison time. Before the government deprives an incarcerated individual of their liberty interest in a shorter sentence, it must provide minimum due process. However, an individual can be found guilty of serious infractions in Washington State prison disciplinary hearings under the “some evidence” standard of proof—a standard that allows for …
Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow
Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow
Washington Law Review
Civil asset forfeiture laws permit police officers to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity and sell or retain the property for the police department’s use. In many states, including Washington, civil forfeiture occurs independent of any criminal case—many property owners are never charged with the offense police allege occurred. Because the government is not required to file criminal charges, property owners facing civil forfeiture lack the constitutional safeguards normally guaranteed to defendants in the criminal justice system: the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, …