Law Commons^™

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, …

The Big Picture View Of Anonymous Tips From Ordinary People, Amanda M. Dadiego

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Inquiries: When Officers Are Not Justified To Approach A Vehicle, Jeremy M. Miller

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

In The Wake Of Florida V. J.L. - When Anonymous Tips Give Police Reasonable Suspicion, Robyn Silvermintz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justification For Police Intrusions, Corey Rashkover

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nuance, Technology, And The Fourth Amendment: A Response To Predictive Policing And Reasonable Suspicion, Fabio Arcila Jr.

Scholarly Works

In an engaging critique, Professor Arcila finds that Professor Ferguson is correct in that predictive policing will likely be incorporated into Fourth Amendment law and that it will alter reasonable suspicion determinations. But Professor Arcila also argues that the potential incorporation of predictive policing reflects a larger deficiency in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and that it should not be adopted because it fails to adequately consider and respect a broader range of protected interests.

The Law And Economics Of Stop-And-Frisk, David S. Abrams

All Faculty Scholarship

The relevant economic and legal research relating to police use of stop-and-frisk has largely been distinct. There is much to be gained by taking an interdisciplinary approach. This Essay emphasizes some of the challenges faced by those seeking to evaluate the efficacy and legality of stop-and-frisk, and suggests some ways forward and areas of exploration for future research.

Debate: The Constitutionality Of Stop-And-Frisk In New York City, David Rudovsky, Lawrence Rosenthal

All Faculty Scholarship

Stop-and-frisk, a crime prevention tactic that allows a police officer to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, has been a contentious police practice since first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968. In Floyd v. City of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices violate both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Professors David Rudovsky and Lawrence Rosenthal debate the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk in New York City in light of …

Pragmatism, Originalism, Race And The Case Against Terry V. Ohio, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Perhaps no decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable search and seizure” has come in for more criticism than Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court concluded that even absent probable cause to arrest, a brief detention and protective search of an individual comports with the Fourth Amendment “where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous . . .” Terry is frequently denounced as granting the …

Probability, Probable Cause, And The Law Of Unintended Consequences, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

This brief essay responds to Max Minzer's article "Putting Probability Back into Probable Cause." The essay supports Professor Minzer's proposal for the use of empirical evidence of the success of a given investigating officer or investigative technique in assessing the existence of probable cause to search or seize, but offers a caveat. If an officer's "hit rate" becomes central to Fourth Amendment analysis, there is a serious danger of overdeterrence which, in turn, could lead to a dangerous escalation in violent crime. The essay offers some proposals for minimizing the risk of overdeterrence in an empirically-based regime of probable cause.

Countermajoritarian Hero Or Zero - Rethinking The Warren Court's Role In The Criminal Procedure Revolution, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

With last fall marking the fiftieth anniversary of Earl Warren's appointment as Chief Justice, enough time has passed to place the criminal procedure revolution in proper historical perspective and rethink the Court's role there as countermajoritarian hero. In the discussion that follows, I aim to do that by examining five of the revolution's most celebrated decisions: Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Katz v. United States, and Terry v. Ohio. In none of these cases, I argue, did the Supreme Court act in a manner truly deserving of its countermajoritarian image. To be clear, I do not …

The Street Locations: Downtown Cleveland, October 31, 1963, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

This appendix to Deciding the Stop and Frisk Cases: A Look Inside the Supreme Court’s Conference, 72 St. John’s L. Rev. 749 (1998), consists of a map drawn by Jill Dinneen (SJU Law '99), based on Sanborn maps from the 1950s and 1960s, photographs and eyewitness descriptions of downtown Cleveland then and now; and a key to marked locations on the map.

The Age Of Unreason: The Impact Of Reasonableness, Increased Police Force, And Colorblindness On Terry "Stop And Frisk", Omar Saleem

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When “Special Needs” Meet Probable Cause: Denying The Devil Benefit Of Law, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

Removing laws to pursue the lawbreaker may be well intentioned, but the result is that society is susceptible to the evils those laws protect against. The traditional Fourth Amendment safeguards--probable cause and warrants--have been abandoned due to the development of a reasonableness standard because of the presence of “special needs” that were used to justify searches. The adoption of this alternative approach to Fourth Amendment interpretation was signalled by the truly landmark case of Terry v. Ohio.

By adopting the “reasonableness” analysis, the Supreme Court altered the impact of the exclusionary rule without directly modifying the rule. After Griffin v. …

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion - The Demise Of Terry V. Ohio And Individualized Suspicion, Esther Jeanette Windmueller

University of Richmond Law Review

The plethora of law review articles and cases on search and seizure demonstrates the confusion and frustration in fourth amendment stop-and-frisk jurisprudence. The fourth amendment to the Constitution guarantees that persons will be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures . . . and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause." A "stop-and-frisk" is a warrantless detention and search of a person by a police officer to investigate for unlawfulness. Although the United States Supreme Court has issued many investigative stop decisions, the Court has failed to promulgate a coherent and practical stop-and-frisk procedure for law enforcement personnel to follow. …

Michigan V. Chesternut And Investigative Pursuits: Is There No End To The War Between The Constitution And Common Sense?, Rachel A. Van Cleave

Publications

Section I of this Comment examines Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court decided that certain on-the-street encounters between police officers and citizens come within fourth amendment scrutiny. Section II traces the development of standards for determining when a seizure has occurred, that is, when a reasonable person would believe he was not "at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business."' In section III, this Comment argues that, when the police chase a citizen, their conduct constitutes a seizure because the citizen is aware of the police's attempt to apprehend him and is therefore …

Searching For The Fourth Amendment, John M.A. Dipippa

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Analysis Of Indiana's "Fleeing A Police Officer" Statute, Jane Mallor

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - Magnetometer As Search

University of Richmond Law Review

As a result of the great number of airborne hijackings and in an attempt to prevent them, the United States Government has developed a "system for discouraging and apprehending potential hijackers" that includes the use of a metal detecting device known as a magnetometer. The constitutional validity of the use of this device recently has been questioned in regard to the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures in the case of Epperson v. United States.

68/06/11 Police Won't Abuse Frisk Power Upheld By High Court, Says Blackwell, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Cleveland Police Chief Michael J. Blackwell says police won't abuse new stop-and-frisk authority granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Terry v. Ohio decision. Cleveland ACLU representative Bernard A. Berkman disagrees with the Court decision saying "I think to rummage a person for evidence and to convict him without probable cause is offensive to the Constitution."

68/06/10 Right To Frisk Gets Supreme Court Ok, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Summarizes the Court's opinion in Terry v Ohio, including quotes from the majority opinion. Also include quotes from Detective Marty McFadden, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor John T. Corrigan as well as Bernard A. Berkman, Cleveland representative of the ACLU.

68/02/14 High Court Decision Awaited In Police "Stop And Frisk" Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Newspaper Coverage

Recaps the events of the case and describes how "police, prosecutors, and others concerned with rising crime rates fear that the Supreme Court may ban or drastically curtail 'stop and frisk,' depriving police of an invaluable investigative tool." Also describes the NAACP brief in which expresses concern that "inhabitants of our inner cities, racial minorities and the underprivileged" will be targeted disproportionately by police.

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

United States Supreme Court

Tuesday, December 12, 1967 oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court.

67/12/12 Supreme Court Hears Stop-Frisk Case, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Reports on Louis Stokes argument that upholding Terry's frisking by Detective Martin McFadden would signal the relaxing of the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure. Reuben Payne, assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, contended that the McFadden had the right to search Terry whom he suspected was planning a robbery and probably was armed.

67/12/11 High Court To Eye Frisk Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Newspaper Coverage

Reports how the Court is hearing Terry v. Ohio along with 3 others cases with stop-and-frisk issues. The Court will explore:

How much right does a policeman have to stop and question a suspicious person he has no legal reason to arrest?

If a policeman frisks a person he does not have a reason to arrest and finds incriminating evidence, can that evidence be used against the person in court.

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

United States Supreme Court

No abstract provided.

67/11/03 Brief Of Respondent, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan

United States Supreme Court

No abstract provided.