Law Commons^™

Some Structural Dilemmas Of World Organization, C. Wilfred Jenks

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment And Seizures— Accidental Seizures By Deadly Force: Who Is Seized During A Police Shootout? Plumhoff V. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014)., Adam D. Franks

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

Trying To Fit A Square Peg Into A Round Hole: Why Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act Must Apply To All Law Enforcement Services, Michael Pecorini

Journal of Law and Policy

Police use of force has been subject to greater scrutiny in recent years in the wake of several high-profile killings of African Americans. Less attention, however, has been paid to the increasingly routine violent encounters between police and individuals with mental illness or intellectual and development disabilities (“I/DD”). This is particularly problematic, as police have become the de-facto first responders to these individuals and far too often police responses to these individuals result in tragedy.

This Note argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement to provide reasonable accommodations during their interactions with and seizures of individuals with …

Dear Irs, It Is Time To Enforce The Campaigning Prohibition. Even Against Churches, Samuel D. Brunson

University of Colorado Law Review

In 1954, Congress prohibited tax-exempt public charities, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for office. To the extent a tax-exempt public charity violated this prohibition, it would no longer qualify as tax-exempt, and the IRS was to revoke its exemption.

While simple in theory, in practice, the IRS rarely penalizes churches that violate the campaigning prohibition and virtually never revokes a church's tax exemption. And, because no taxpayer has standing to challenge the IRS's inaction, the IRS has no external imperative to revoke the exemptions of churches that do campaign on behalf of or against candidates for office.

This …