Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Fordham Urban Law Journal
In this symposium contribution, I contend that the application of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in cases tried by juries raises troubling moral issues that are not present when a judge adjudicates a case on his or her own. Specifically, I argue that the exclusionary rule infringes upon jurors’ deliberative autonomy by depriving them of available evidence that rationally bears upon their verdict and by instrumentalizing them in service to the Court’s deterrence objectives. After considering ways in which those moral problems could be at least partially mitigated, I contend that the best approach might be to abandon the exclusionary …
Moving Targets: Placing The Good Faith Doctrine In The Context Of Fragmented Policing, Hadar Aviram, Jeremy Seymour, Richard A. Leo
Moving Targets: Placing The Good Faith Doctrine In The Context Of Fragmented Policing, Hadar Aviram, Jeremy Seymour, Richard A. Leo
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The debate sparked by Herring v. United States is a microcosm of the quintessential debate about the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule and ultimately the appropriate breadth of police authority and constitutional review by courts. Offering a new reading of the decision, this article argues that Herring reflects a healthy dosage of real politic and an acknowledgment that American policing is characterized by a fragmented, localized structure with little overview and control, and much reliance on local agencies. Part I presents the authors’ interpretation of Herring as a case hinging upon the question “who made the mistake?” as …
Introduction To Symposium: The Future Of The Exclusionary Rule And The Aftereffects Of The Herring And Hudson Decisions, Barry Kamins
Introduction To Symposium: The Future Of The Exclusionary Rule And The Aftereffects Of The Herring And Hudson Decisions, Barry Kamins
Fordham Urban Law Journal
This article is an introduction the symposium, "The Future of the Exclusionary Rule and the Aftereffects of the Herring and Hudson Decisions," hosted by the Fordham Urban Law Journal. The symposium explored the effects of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Herring v. United States and Hudson v. Michigan—what the Supreme Court will do with the Rule in the future, as well as varying interpretations of what the Supreme Court should do. The federal exclusionary rule, which is approaching its 100th anniversary, was extended to the states almost fifty years ago by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision of Mapp …
The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps
The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The justices of the Supreme Court have drawn new battle lines over the exclusionary rule. In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), a five-justice majority, over a strong dissent, went out of the way to renew familiar criticisms of the rule. Just this January, in Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009), the justices again divided five to four. This time the dissenters raised the ante, by arguing that the Court's cost-benefit approach to applying the rule is misguided. For the first time since Justice Brennan left the Court, some of the justices appealed to broader justifications for …
The Doctrine Of Collateral Estoppel In Parole Revocation, Patrick M. Reilly
The Doctrine Of Collateral Estoppel In Parole Revocation, Patrick M. Reilly
Fordham Urban Law Journal
In recent years courts have shown more recognition of the rights of parolees and probationers. Spurred by a Supreme Court decision that certain due process protections were applicable to parole revocation procedures, revocation hearings are now providing parolees and probationers some of the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at trial. Policy considerations have dictated, however, that the protections available at revocation hearings must fall far short of conferring upon the accused "the full panoply of rights due a defendant" at trial. As a result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on the difference between revocation hearings and criminal proceedings, lower …