Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (3)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Animal Law (1)
-
- Courts (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- National Security Law (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Public Policy (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Torts (1)
- Keyword
-
- Eighth Amendment (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- American prisons (1)
- Arkansas (1)
- Arkansas Supreme Court (1)
-
- Border patrol (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Canines (1)
- Cruel and unusual punishment (1)
- Cummins prison (1)
- Dog scent identification (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Foreign relations (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Incarcerated people (1)
- Independent contractor (1)
- Indifference (1)
- Insanity defense (1)
- National prisons (1)
- National security (1)
- Pandemic (1)
- Prison bureaucracy (1)
- Prison reform (1)
- Public policy (1)
- Reasonable suspicion (1)
- Rule-making authority (1)
- State purview (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law Enforcement and Corrections
A Dog's Bark To Act As A Nark, Bailey R. Geller
A Dog's Bark To Act As A Nark, Bailey R. Geller
Arkansas Law Review
This Comment therefore advocates for systemic reconsideration of dog scent lineups at trial. It will not claim that all dog scent lineups are flawless, particularly given the slipshod manner in which many are performed. But dog scent identifications are increasingly more valuable than our legal system currently acknowledges when they are properly conducted. They should be admissible.
Creating Cautionary Tales: Institutional, Judicial, And Societal Indifference To The Lives Of Incarcerated Individuals, Nicole B. Godfrey
Creating Cautionary Tales: Institutional, Judicial, And Societal Indifference To The Lives Of Incarcerated Individuals, Nicole B. Godfrey
Arkansas Law Review
It has long been said that a society’s worth can be judged by taking stock of its prisons. That is all the truer in this pandemic, where inmates everywhere have been rendered vulnerable and often powerless to protect themselves from harm. May we hope that our country’s facilities serve as models rather than cautionary tales. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, issued the above-quoted clarion call to protect the lives of incarcerated people on May 14, 2020. At that point, the COVID-19 pandemic had brought American society to a standstill for a little more than two months, …
Unbuckling The Seat Belt Defense In Arkansas, Spencer G. Dougherty
Unbuckling The Seat Belt Defense In Arkansas, Spencer G. Dougherty
Arkansas Law Review
The “seat belt defense” has been hotly litigated over the decades in numerous jurisdictions across the United States. It is an affirmative defense that, when allowed, reduces a plaintiff’s recovery for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision where the defendant can establish that those injuries would have been less severe or avoided entirely had the plaintiff been wearing an available seat belt. This is an unsettled legal issue in Arkansas, despite the growing number of cases in which the seat belt defense is raised as an issue. Most jurisdictions, including Arkansas, initially rejected the defense, but the basis for …
Recent Developments, Peyton Hildebrand
Recent Developments, Peyton Hildebrand
Arkansas Law Review
In a 5-4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court once again denied a Bivens action. This case involved a tragic crossborder shooting by a border patrol agent standing on United States soil, who shot and killed a young boy standing on Mexican soil. Petitioners, the boy’s parents, sought relief under Biven2, arguing the agent’s action violated the Constitution. However, the Court determined the cross-border shooting was a new Bivens context, which required an analysis of whether any special factors “counseled hesitation” for the cause of action to be extended. The Court concluded Bivens was inappropriate because several factors “counseled hesitation”—namely, …
Recent Developments, Raelynn J. Hillhouse