Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- GPS (2)
- Police (2)
- Searches (2)
- Surveillance (2)
-
- United States v. Jones (2)
- Article III (1)
- Atkins (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutionality (1)
- Death row (1)
- Defendants (1)
- Delegation (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Flynn effect (1)
- Government action (1)
- Judicial acts (1)
- Liberty interests (1)
- Mental health (1)
- Mental health treatment (1)
- Mental retardation (1)
- Mosaic theory (1)
- Probation officers (1)
- Search warrants (1)
- Seizures (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law Enforcement and Corrections
The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr
The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
In the Supreme Court's recent decision on GPS surveillance, United States v. Jones, five justices authored or joined concurring opinions that applied a new approach to interpreting Fourth Amendment protection. Before Jones, Fourth Amendment decisions had always evaluated each step of an investigation individually. Jones introduced what we might call a "mosaic theory" of the Fourth Amendment, by which courts evaluate a collective sequence of government activity as an aggregated whole to consider whether the sequence amounts to a search. This Article considers the implications of a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the choices and puzzles that …
Dubious Delegation: Article Iii Limits On Mental Health Treatment Decisions, Adam Teitelbaum
Dubious Delegation: Article Iii Limits On Mental Health Treatment Decisions, Adam Teitelbaum
Michigan Law Review
A common condition of supervised release requires a defendant, post-incarceration, to participate in a mental health treatment program. Federal district courts often order probation officers to make certain decisions ancillary to these programs. However Article III delegation doctrine places limits on such actions. This Note addresses the constitutionality of delegating the "treatment program" decision, in which a probation officer decides which type of treatment the defendant must undergo; the choice is often between inpatient treatment and other less restrictive alternatives. The resolution of this issue ultimately depends on whether this decision constitutes a "judicial act." Finding support in lower court …
A More Intelligent And Just "Atkins:" Adjusting For The Flynn Effect In Capital Determinations Of Mental Retardation Or Intellectual Disability, Geraldine W. Young
A More Intelligent And Just "Atkins:" Adjusting For The Flynn Effect In Capital Determinations Of Mental Retardation Or Intellectual Disability, Geraldine W. Young
Vanderbilt Law Review
In Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a ban on all executions of mentally retarded persons. This declaration, however, rings hollow for those mentally retarded defendants and inmates who continue to face death sentences as a result of the inconsistent enforcement of Atkins across jurisdictions. One issue in particular-whether to adjust intelligence-test scores for the phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect-has caused inconsistency among courts and has sparked a contentious battle among experts. It blurs the already-precarious line between life and death. And yet, the Flynn Effect captivates capital defendants and inmates with its promise of adjusting intelligence-test …
Signal Lost: Is A Gps Tracking System The Same As An Eyeball?, Eric Andrew Felleman
Signal Lost: Is A Gps Tracking System The Same As An Eyeball?, Eric Andrew Felleman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat
On November 8th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Jones. One of the primary issues in the case is whether law enforcement personnel violated Mr. Jones' Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by using a GPS tracking device to monitor the location of his car without a warrant. The 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit have both recently held that use of GPS tracking is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.