Law Commons^™

Community Caretaking Exception Saves Lives . . . The Supreme Court Disagrees, Gabriella Lorenzo

Touro Law Review

As many are aware, the Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant is necessary for said activities. While there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court recently held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home. Extending this exception to the home would allow police officers to enter and engage in functions that are unrelated to the investigation of a crime. Essentially, this exception would allow police to aid individuals and prevent serious, dangerous situations to protect the community. This Note discusses why the Supreme Court erred in …

Cloudy With A Chance Of Government Intrusion: The Third-Party Doctrine In The 21st Century, Steven Arango

Catholic University Law Review

Technology may be created by humans, but we are dependent on it. Look around you: what technology is near you as you read this abstract? An iPhone? A laptop? Perhaps even an Amazon Echo. What do all these devices have in common? They store data in the cloud. And this data can contain some of our most sensitive information, such as business records or medical documents.

Even if you manage this cloud storage account, the government may be able to search your data without a warrant. Federal law provides little protection for cloud stored data. And the Fourth Amendment may …

Gps Tracking At The Border: A Mistaken Expectation Or A Chilling Reality, Kimberly Shi

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

In 2018, Matthew C. Allen, the Assistant Director for the Domestic Operations Division within the United States Department of Homeland Security, filed a declaration in United States v. Ignjatov describing a departmental policy allowing for the installation of a “GPS tracking device on a vehicle at the United States border without a warrant or individualized suspicion,” limited “to 48 hours.” While the Border Search Doctrine, which predates the Fourth Amendment, deems that no warrant is necessary at the border for most searches and seizures because of the government’s inherent power to control who or what comes within a nation’s borders, …

In General Public Use: An Unnecessary Test In Fourth Amendment Searches Using Advanced Sensing Technology, Mike Petridis

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Knock Or Not To Knock? No-Knock Warrants And Confrontational Policing, Brian Dolan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note proceeds in three parts. Part I begins by explaining what no-knock warrants are and why they are used. Part I then addresses recent state legislative efforts to reform no-knock warrant use and argues that these efforts, however well-intentioned, are insufficient. Part I will also provide a brief history of how no-knock warrant use developed and gives an overview of the current status of state law regarding no-knock warrants. Part II argues that, contrary to the arguments of no-knock proponents, elimination of no-knock warrants and strict adherence to the knock-and-announce requirement is a more effective way to ensure …

Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide.* Applying The Fourth Amendment To Connected Cars In The Internet-Of-Things Era, Gregory C. Brown, Jr.

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note will briefly discuss the key components of a Connected Car, identify who collects the data from the Car, and examine the various uses for the data. Part I also explores whether Car owners consent to the collection of their Car’s data. Part II-A will trace the historical development of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which generally permits law-enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. Part II-B will discuss how the Supreme Court has applied the Fourth Amendment to pre-Internet technologies. Part II-C will discuss two recent Fourth Amendment Supreme …

United States V. Ammons, Rebecca Ruffer

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Hill, Nazariy Gavrysh

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Privacy Vs. Protection: Why Tracking Mobile-Device Location Data Without A Warrant Requires A Fourth Amendment Exception, Andrew Stover

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Riley And Abandonment: Expanding Fourth Amendment Protection Of Cell Phones, Abigail Hoverman

Northwestern University Law Review

In light of the privacy concerns inherent to personal technological devices, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in 2014 recognizing the need for categorical heightened protection of cell phones during searches incident to arrest in Riley v. California. This Note argues for expansion of heightened protections for cell phones in the context of abandoned evidence because the same privacy concerns apply. This argument matters because state and federal courts have not provided the needed protection to abandoned cell phones pre- or post-Riley.

The Fourth Amendment And Driving While Intoxicated: When Does A Police Officer Need A Warrant ?, Marra Kassman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hijacked At The Border: Why The Government Should Have Reasonable Suspicion Before Conducting Intrusive Examinations Of Our Personal Electronic Devices, Ryne Spengler

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Barnville, David Schoenhaar

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Miller, Courtney Weinberger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Seize First, Search Later: The Hunt For Digital Evidence, Paige Bartholomew

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Burton, Diane Matero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"To Corral And Control The Ghetto": Stop, Frisk, And The Geography Of Freedom, Anders Walker

University of Richmond Law Review

While criminal law scholar Michelle Alexander has shown that stop and frisks often serve as the gateway into the criminal justice system for young men of color, she occludes the complex forces that led to their rise." This article seeks to identify those forces, relating the rise of stop and frisk rules to liberal politics, Cold War concerns, and spatial dynamics. To illustrate, this article will proceed in three parts. Part I will demonstrate how Mapp v. Ohio coincided with judicial frustration at police intrusions into private, intimate space-including private thought-precisely at a time when the United States sought to …

The "Orwellian Consequence" Of Smartphone Tracking: Why A Warrant Under The Fourth Amendment Is Required Prior To Collection Of Gps Data From Smartphones, Matthew Devoy Jones

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note argues that a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, rather than under the ECPA or no warrant at all, must be obtained prior to collection of GPS data from a user’s smartphone, whether payment for the phone is contractual or pay-asyou-go. This Note discusses smartphones and how the purpose of the Fourth Amendment applies to smartphone tracking. This Note also discusses the legislative intent behind the ECPA and its inapplicability to smartphone tracking. In addition, this Note addresses United States Supreme Court decisions regarding electronic monitoring by law enforcement, as well as the development and present use of GPS …

Consensual Police-Citizen Encounters: Human Factors Of A Reasonable Person And Individual Bias., Evan M. Mcguire

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable government intrusion. The government must establish probable cause and obtain a warrant to search a particular location. However, there are minute Fourth Amendment distinctions at various levels of police-citizen interaction which act as exceptions to the general rule. Officers may approach a citizen for any reason as long as a reasonable person in their place would feel able to escape the officer’s advances. Ultimately, abuse of this exception to Fourth Amendment protections occurs frequently, especially when it comes to minority populations. The police can conduct a search without a warrant if there is reasonable …

Survey Of Washington Search And Seizure Law: 2013 Update, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Debra L. Stephens

Seattle University Law Review

This survey is intended to serve as a resource to which Washington lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, and others can turn as an authoritative starting point for researching Washington search and seizure law. In order to be useful as a research tool, this Survey requires periodic updates to address new cases interpreting the Washington constitution and the U.S. Constitution and to reflect the current state of the law. Many of these cases involve the Washington State Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Washington constitution. Also, as the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to examine Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence, its …

United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ross vastly simplified the process of searching closed containers found in an automobile during a lawful Carroll search yet, at the same time, placed in question the importance of the search warrant in the scheme of fourth amendment jurisprudence by equating the policeman's determination of probable cause with that of the magistrate.

New Jersey V. T.L.O.: The Supreme Court Severely Limits Schoolchildrens' Fourth Amendment Rights When Being Searched By Public School Officials, Missy Kelly Bankhead

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eavesdropping Under New York And Federal Law: How New York Is Departing From Long-Standing Interpretations Mirroring Federal Law - People V. Rabb, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vehicle Checkpoints: The Ever-Expanding Array Of Purposes For Which A Vehicle May Be Stopped - People V. Gavenda, Jan Lucas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wilson V. Layne: Increasing The Scope Of The Fourth Amendment Right To Privacy, Ashlea Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

It’S In The Bag: Voluntariness, Scope, And The Authority To Grant Consent - United States V. Harris, Daniel Fier

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

We Can Do This The Easy Way Or The Hard Way: The Use Of Deceit To Induce Consent Searches, Rebecca Strauss

Michigan Law Review

In October of 1995, Aaron Salvo was studying and living at Ashland College. College officials informed local FBI agents that they suspected Salvo of possible child molestation and related conduct based on incriminating electronic mail. FBI agents approached Salvo at his dormitory, asked to speak with him in private about the suspicious mail, and suggested they speak in Salvo's dorm room. Salvo agreed to speak with the officers, but declined to do so in his room because his roommate was there, and he did not want to get anyone else involved in the embarrassing nature of the upcoming conversation. Salvo …

Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler

Michigan Law Review

Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …