Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 28 of 28
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Rapid Rise Of Delayed Notice Searches, And The Fourth Amendment "Rule Requiring Notice", Jonathan Witmer-Rich
The Rapid Rise Of Delayed Notice Searches, And The Fourth Amendment "Rule Requiring Notice", Jonathan Witmer-Rich
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This article documents the rapid rise of covert searching, through delayed notice search warrants, and argues that covert searching in its current form presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment's "rule requiring notice."
Congress authorized these "sneak and peek" warrants in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, and soon after added a reporting requirement to monitor this invasive search technique. Since 2001, the use of delayed notice search warrants has risen dramatically, from around 25 in 2002 to 5601 in 2012, suggesting that "sneak and peek" searches are becoming alarmingly common. In fact, it is not at all clear whether true "sneak …
68/02/01 Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, Erwin N. Griswold, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg, Mervyn Hamburg
68/02/01 Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, Erwin N. Griswold, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg, Mervyn Hamburg
United States Supreme Court
"In sum, we believe that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment to recognize a power in law enforcement officers to detain and question under circumstances amounting to less than probable cause for a formal arrest, and that, in exercising such power, the officer may legitimately protect himself by a frisk for dangerous weapons" -- from page 18.
67/12/12 Oral Arguments Before The Us Supreme Court, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne, Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall
67/12/12 Oral Arguments Before The Us Supreme Court, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne, Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall
United States Supreme Court
Tuesday, December 12, 1967 oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court.
67/11/17 Brief Of Americans For Effective Law Enforcement, As Amicus Curiae, James R. Thompson
67/11/17 Brief Of Americans For Effective Law Enforcement, As Amicus Curiae, James R. Thompson
United States Supreme Court
"Despite the evidence which has been found of cases in which some police have abused field interrogation in some instances - evidence upon which the amicus relies so heavily - the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice unanimously recommends its adoption and use :
"The Commission believes that there is a definite need to authorize the police to stop suspects and possible witnesses of major crimes, to detain them for brief questioning if they will not voluntarily cooperate, and to search such suspects for dangerous weapons when such precaution is necessary."
This Amicus Curiae requests that the …
67/11/13 Brief Of National District Attorneys Assocation Amicus Curiae, In Support Of Respondent, Harry Wood, Harry E. Sondheim, Brenden T. Byrne, Charles Moylan Jr., Evelle T. Younger
67/11/13 Brief Of National District Attorneys Assocation Amicus Curiae, In Support Of Respondent, Harry Wood, Harry E. Sondheim, Brenden T. Byrne, Charles Moylan Jr., Evelle T. Younger
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/11/03 Brief Of Respondent, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
67/11/03 Brief Of Respondent, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/10/25 Brief Of Attorney General Of The State Of New York As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Maria L. Marcus, Brenda Soloff
67/10/25 Brief Of Attorney General Of The State Of New York As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Maria L. Marcus, Brenda Soloff
United States Supreme Court
New York Attorney General Amicus Curiae brief argues that police should be able to stop and question suspects whom they reasonably believe have or are planning to commit a felony.
67/10/18 Brief For Petitioner, Terry, Louis Stokes, Jack G. Day
67/10/18 Brief For Petitioner, Terry, Louis Stokes, Jack G. Day
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/09/27 Brief Of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Of Ohio, And New York Civil Liberties Union, Amici Curiae, Thomas H. Barnard, Irwin M. Feldman, Lewis R. Katz, Bernard A. Berkman, Lewis A. Stern, Melvin L. Wulf, Alan H. Levine
67/09/27 Brief Of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Of Ohio, And New York Civil Liberties Union, Amici Curiae, Thomas H. Barnard, Irwin M. Feldman, Lewis R. Katz, Bernard A. Berkman, Lewis A. Stern, Melvin L. Wulf, Alan H. Levine
United States Supreme Court
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of New York and New York Civil Liberties Union's Amici Curiae Brief arguing against the "stop-and-frisk" practice as seen in Terry v. Ohio and Chilton v. Ohio, Peters v. New York, and Sibron v. New York.
67/08/31 Brief For The N.A.A.C.P Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., As Amicus Curiae, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit Iii, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, Anthony G. Amsterdam, William E. Mcdaniels Jr.
67/08/31 Brief For The N.A.A.C.P Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., As Amicus Curiae, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit Iii, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, Anthony G. Amsterdam, William E. Mcdaniels Jr.
United States Supreme Court
"The Court should hold that neither stops nor frisks may be made without probable cause. In each of these cases, the judgment of conviction should be reversed" -- conclusion, p. 69.
67/05/17 Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
67/05/17 Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/03/17 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Ohio, Louis Stokes
67/03/17 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Ohio, Louis Stokes
United States Supreme Court
Argues that the introduction of evidence (their guns) against Terry and Chilton violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that "bare suspicion alone" does not meet the requirements for "probable cause" set forth in the Forth and Fourteenth Amendments.
67/01/11 Docket And Journal Entries, Court Of Appeals, Emil J. Masgay
67/01/11 Docket And Journal Entries, Court Of Appeals, Emil J. Masgay
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
Docket and journal entries for Ohio v. Terry and Ohio v. Chilton, prepared by Emil J. Masgay, Clerk of Courts at the Eighth Judicial District Court of Appeals.
67/01/09 Precipe, Louis Stokes
67/01/09 Precipe, Louis Stokes
United States Supreme Court
Precipe asking the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County to prepare and file with the United States Supreme Court a certified transcript of the docket, and journal entries together with the original papers and including the Court's opinion in State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton.
66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio
66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio
Ohio Supreme Court
Mandate to Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, to proceed without delay to carry out its judgment in Ohio v Terry citing no substantial constitution question involved.
66/09/21 Motion To Dismiss Appeal Filed As Of Right And Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction, John T. Corrigan, Reuben M. Payne
66/09/21 Motion To Dismiss Appeal Filed As Of Right And Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction, John T. Corrigan, Reuben M. Payne
Ohio Supreme Court
"The trial court properly found that there is a distinction between a frisk and a search, and that in the circumstances of this case the frisk preceded the arrest, and further, that the arrest and search in connection therewith were legal. The opinion of the Court of Appeals and the authorities cited therein support that conclusion. The defendant has not shown any valid reason why these findings should be disturbed. The motion for leave to appeal should therefore be overruled." From the Conclusion, page 14.
66/06/14 Notice Of Appeal For Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Louis Stokes
66/06/14 Notice Of Appeal For Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Louis Stokes
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
Louis Stokes gives notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court from judgment rendered by 8th District Court of Appeals on May 25, 1966. Appeal is on questions of law and on condition that motion for leave to appeal be allowed by Supreme Court of Ohio; constitutional question is also involved.
66/05/25 Journal Entry From Appeals Court Affirming The Common Pleas Court Judgment In Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Samuel H. Silbert
66/05/25 Journal Entry From Appeals Court Affirming The Common Pleas Court Judgment In Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Samuel H. Silbert
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
The Court of Appeals, Eight District, Cuyahoga County finds no error prejudicial to the appellant, thus affirming the Common Pleas Court judgement. Signed by Chief Justice Joseph H. Silbert, with Justices Joseph A. Artl and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan concurring.
66/02/11 Opinion, Eighth Judicial District Of Ohio, Court Of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, Samuel H. Silbert
66/02/11 Opinion, Eighth Judicial District Of Ohio, Court Of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, Samuel H. Silbert
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
Judges Samuel H. Silbert, Joseph A. Artl, and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan unanimously upheld Judge Bernard Friedman's decision in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The Appeals Court held that Detective Martin J. McFadden had validly found the gun carried by John Terry and had, at the moment of the arrest, adequate probable cause to arrest Terry.
65/03/11 Brief Of Defendant-Appellant, Louis Stokes
65/03/11 Brief Of Defendant-Appellant, Louis Stokes
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
"ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1. The Court erred in not sustaining defendant's Motion to Suppress upon making its finding that the arrest herein was illegal. (R. 96, 100)
2. The Court erred in refusing to apply constitutional guarantees prohibiting illegal searches and seizures and substituting therefor a doctrine of stop and frisk."
65/03/11 Stipulation Of Fact And Evidence, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
65/03/11 Stipulation Of Fact And Evidence, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
"By stipulation and agreement by and between Reuben Payne, Assistant County Prosecutor, on behalf of the State of Ohio, and Louis Stokes, on behalf of the defendants, Motion to Suppress the Evidence filed by the said Louis Stokes on behalf of the defendants, John W. Terry and Richard D. Chilton, were consolidated for the purpose of hearing on the Motions to Suppress.
The defendants had each been indicted for the offense of Carrying Concealed Weapons under separate indictments. The defendant John W. Terry had been indicted in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Branch, under case number 79491. The defendant …
64/10/28 Appeal By John Terry Defendant-Appellant (Law & Fact), Lee E. Skeel
64/10/28 Appeal By John Terry Defendant-Appellant (Law & Fact), Lee E. Skeel
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
October 28, 1964 Motion by defendant appellant for stay of execution pending appeal granted. Motion for bail overruled.
64/09/22 Judge Bernard Friedman's Opinion In State V. Chilton And State V. Terry, Bernard Friedman
64/09/22 Judge Bernard Friedman's Opinion In State V. Chilton And State V. Terry, Bernard Friedman
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
In the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Bernard Friedman drew a distinction between "stop and frisk" and "search and seizure." This distinction was also recognized the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio.
Judge Friedman wrote in his opinion:
"A search is primarily for the purpose of trying to obtain evidence in connection with the commission of a crime, that the police officer may reasonably believe that a crime has been committed or might be committed.
A frisking is strictly for the protection of the officer's person and his life. There was reasonable cause in this case …
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 3, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 3, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Part three of Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 1, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 1, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 2, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 2, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Part two of Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 4, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 4, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Part four of Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.
64/05/12 Capias On Indictment For Carrying Concealed Weapons, John T. Corrigan
64/05/12 Capias On Indictment For Carrying Concealed Weapons, John T. Corrigan
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
No abstract provided.