Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Inchoate Crimes Revisted: A Behavioral Economics Perspective, Manuel A. Utset
Inchoate Crimes Revisted: A Behavioral Economics Perspective, Manuel A. Utset
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Sanctity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship – Undermined By The Federal Interpretation Of The Right To Counsel - People V. Borukhova, Tara Laterza
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Cumulative Approach To Ineffective Assistance: New York’S Requirement That Counsel’S Cumulative Efforts Amount To Meaningful Representation - People V. Bodden, Jan Lucas
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
What Are We Searching For? Conditions, Elements, And Requirements For A Valid “Searching Inquiry” In The State Of New York - People V. Crampe, Dean M. Villani
What Are We Searching For? Conditions, Elements, And Requirements For A Valid “Searching Inquiry” In The State Of New York - People V. Crampe, Dean M. Villani
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Striking A Balance: Why Ohio's Felony-Arrestee Dna Statute Is Unconstitutional And Ripe For Legistlative Action, Brendan Heil
Striking A Balance: Why Ohio's Felony-Arrestee Dna Statute Is Unconstitutional And Ripe For Legistlative Action, Brendan Heil
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note argues that Ohio’s felony-arrestee DNA statute violates Article I, section 14 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The initial physical swab and the subsequent database searches of an arrestee’s DNA sample, while the arrestee is in custody or being prosecuted, do not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the inclusion of an innocent person’s DNA in Ohio’s DNA database, subject to repeated searches over time, violates both the Ohio and federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. Broadly written DNA statutes trample people’s civil rights, and more carefully drawn legislation could meet the …