Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 14 of 14

Full-Text Articles in Law

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Celaj, Danielle Dupré Dec 2014

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Celaj, Danielle Dupré

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Apellate Division, Third Department, People V. Kelley, Elyssa Lane Dec 2014

Apellate Division, Third Department, People V. Kelley, Elyssa Lane

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Race And The Decision To Detain A Suspect, Sheri Johnson Dec 2014

Race And The Decision To Detain A Suspect, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.


The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb Dec 2014

The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

Supreme Court doctrine protects two seemingly distinct kinds of interests under the heading of privacy rights: one "substantive," the other "procedural." The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been generally interpreted to protect procedural privacy. Searches are typically defined as governmental inspections of activities and locations in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. In the typical case, this reasonable expectation of privacy may be breached only where the government has acquired a quantitatively substantial objective basis for believing that the search would uncover evidence of a crime. Substantive privacy rights have not …


Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb Dec 2014

Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.


Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb Dec 2014

Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.


Standing Room Only: Why Fourth Amendment Exclusion And Standing Can No Longer Logically Coexist, Sherry F. Colb Dec 2014

Standing Room Only: Why Fourth Amendment Exclusion And Standing Can No Longer Logically Coexist, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Barnville, David Schoenhaar Nov 2014

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Justification For Police Intrusions, Corey Rashkover Nov 2014

Justification For Police Intrusions, Corey Rashkover

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz Jun 2014

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.


Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Hall, Eric Pack May 2014

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Hall, Eric Pack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Burton, Diane Matero May 2014

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman May 2014

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Probable Cause And Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests Or Rigid Rules?, Kit Kinports Jan 2014

Probable Cause And Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests Or Rigid Rules?, Kit Kinports

Journal Articles

This piece argues that the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision in Navarette v. Calfornia, like last Term's opinion in Florida v. Harris, deviates from longstanding Supreme Court precedent treating probable cause and reasonable suspicion as totality-of-the-circumstances tests. Instead, these two recent rulings essentially rely on rigid rules to define probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The article criticizes the Court for selectively endorsing bright-line tests that favor the prosecution, and argues that both decisions generate rules that oversimplify and therefore tend to be overinclusive.