Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 32
Full-Text Articles in Law
Can The Fourth Amendment Keep People "Secure In Their Persons"?, Bruce A. Green
Can The Fourth Amendment Keep People "Secure In Their Persons"?, Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Social Norms In Fourth Amendment Law, Matthew Tokson, Ari Ezra Waldman
Social Norms In Fourth Amendment Law, Matthew Tokson, Ari Ezra Waldman
Michigan Law Review
Courts often look to existing social norms to resolve difficult questions in Fourth Amendment law. In theory, these norms can provide an objective basis for courts’ constitutional decisions, grounding Fourth Amendment law in familiar societal attitudes and beliefs. In reality, however, social norms can shift rapidly, are constantly being contested, and frequently reflect outmoded and discriminatory concepts. This Article draws on contemporary sociological literatures on norms and technology to reveal how courts’ reliance on norms leads to several identifiable errors in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Courts assessing social norms generally adopt what we call the closure principle, or the idea that …
Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall
Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall
Maine Law Review
In the endless and seemingly futile government war against drugs, protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution may have fallen by the wayside as courts struggle to deal with drug offenders. The compelling government interest in controlling the influx of drugs all too often results in a judicial attitude that the ends justify the means. Judges can be reluctant to exclude evidence of drugs found in an unlawful search pursuant to the exclusionary rule, which provides that illegally obtained evidence may not be used at trial. The exclusion of drugs as evidence in drug cases often …
Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett
Maine Law Review
In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to the Fourth …
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Fourth Amendment Framework For The Fee Exercise Clause, Adam Lamparello
A Fourth Amendment Framework For The Fee Exercise Clause, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
This article proposes a paradigm for resolving disputes under the free exercise clause that is analogous to the framework used by the court under the fourth amendment when balancing privacy rights against investigatory powers of law enforcement. In its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Court provides varying degrees of protection to privacy – and imposes different evidentiary requirements on law enforcement – depending on the context in which privacy is affected, the intrusiveness of a particular search, and the asserted governmental interests. For example, privacy receives the strongest protections in areas such as the home, thus requiring law enforcement to have …
Riley V. California: A Pyrric Victory For Privacy, Adam Lamparello
Riley V. California: A Pyrric Victory For Privacy, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court ushered privacy protections into the digital era and signaled that the Fourth Amendment would not become a constitutional afterthought. The Court unanimously held that, absent exigent circumstances, law enforcement officers could not search any area of an arrestee’s cell phone, including the outgoing call log, without a warrant and probable cause. At first glance, Riley appears to be a landmark decision in favor of individual privacy rights. As with most things, however, the devil is in the details, and the details in Riley make any celebration over the seemingly enhanced …
Riley V. California: A Pyrric Victory For Privacy, Adam Lamparello
Riley V. California: A Pyrric Victory For Privacy, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court ushered privacy protections into the digital era and signaled that the Fourth Amendment would not become a constitutional afterthought. The Court unanimously held that, absent exigent circumstances, law enforcement officers could not search any area of an arrestee’s cell phone, including the outgoing call log, without a warrant and probable cause. At first glance, Riley appears to be a landmark decision in favor of individual privacy rights. As with most things, however, the devil is in the details, and the details in Riley make any celebration over the seemingly enhanced …
City Of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About, Adam Lamparello
City Of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
Focusing solely on whether a hotel owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a guest registry is akin to asking whether Verizon Wireless has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its customer lists. The answer to those questions should be yes, but the sixty-four thousand dollar question—and the proverbial elephant in the room—is whether hotel occupants and cell phone users forfeit their privacy rights simply because they check into the Beverly Hills Hotel or call their significant others from a Smart Phone on the Santa Monica Freeway. Put differently, a hotel owner’s expectation of privacy in a guest registry …
City Of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About, Adam Lamparello
City Of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
Focusing solely on whether a hotel owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a guest registry is akin to asking whether Verizon Wireless has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its customer lists. The answer to those questions should be yes, but the sixty-four thousand dollar question—and the proverbial elephant in the room—is whether hotel occupants and cell phone users forfeit their privacy rights simply because they check into the Beverly Hills Hotel or call their significant others from a Smart Phone on the Santa Monica Freeway.
Put differently, a hotel owner’s expectation of privacy in a guest registry …
Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Johnson, Denise Shanley
Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Johnson, Denise Shanley
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Internet Is The New Public Forum: Why Riley V. California Supports Net Neutrality, Adam Lamparello
The Internet Is The New Public Forum: Why Riley V. California Supports Net Neutrality, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
Technology has ushered civil liberties into the virtual world, and the law must adapt by providing legal protections to individuals who speak, assemble, and associate in that world. The original purposes of the First Amendment, which from time immemorial have protected civil liberties and preserved the free, open, and robust exchange of information, support net neutrality. After all, laws or practices that violate cherished freedoms in the physical world also violate those freedoms in the virtual world. The battle over net neutrality is “is absolutely the First Amendment issue of our time,” just as warrantless searches of cell phones were …
Riley V. California: Privacy Still Matters, But How Much And In What Contexts?, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Riley V. California: Privacy Still Matters, But How Much And In What Contexts?, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Adam Lamparello
Private information is no longer stored only in homes or other areas traditionally protected from warrantless intrusion. The private lives of many citizens are contained in digital devices no larger than the palm of their hand—and carried in public places. But that does not make the data within a cell phone any less private, just as the dialing of a phone number does not voluntarily waive an individual’s right to keep their call log or location private. Remember that we are not talking exclusively about individuals suspected of committing violent crimes. The Government is recording the calls and locations of …
Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Adam Lamparello
Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.
When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years …
Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Section 1983 Litigation, Martin A. Schwartz
Protective Sweep Incident To A Lawful Arrest: An Analysis Of Its Validity Under The Federal And New York State Constitution, Steven M. Fox
Protective Sweep Incident To A Lawful Arrest: An Analysis Of Its Validity Under The Federal And New York State Constitution, Steven M. Fox
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Using The Constitution: Separation Of Powers And Damages For Constitutional Violations, James A. Thomson
Using The Constitution: Separation Of Powers And Damages For Constitutional Violations, James A. Thomson
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas
Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Honorable George C. Pratt, Leon Friedman
Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Honorable George C. Pratt, Leon Friedman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.