Law Commons^™

Exposing Police Misconduct In Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings, Anjelica Hendricks

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents a unique argument: police misconduct records should be accessible and applicable for pre-trial criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, the existing narrative on the value of police misconduct records is narrow because it exclusively considers how these records can be used to impeach officer credibility at trial. This focus is limiting for several reasons. First, it addresses too few defendants, since fewer than 3% of criminal cases make it to trial. Second, it overlooks misconduct records not directly addressing credibility—such as records demonstrating paperwork deficiencies, failures to appear in court, and “mistakes” that upon examination are patterns of abuse. Finally, …

Mass Suppression: Aggregation And The Fourth Amendment, Nirej Sekhon

Georgia Law Review

The FourthAmendment's exclusionary rule requires that
criminal courts suppress evidence obtained as a result of
an unconstitutionalsearch or seizure. The Supreme Court
has repeatedly stated that suppression is purely
regulatory, not remedial. Its only purpose is to deter
future police misconduct, not to remedy past privacy or
liberty harms suffered by the defendant. Exclusion, in
other words, is for the benefit of community members who
might, sometime in the future, be subject to police
misconduct like that endured by the defendant.
Exclusion's regulatory purpose would be greatly aided if
criminal courts could identify when a suppression motion
involved Fourth Amendment …

Ensuring Protection Of Juveniles' Rights: A Better Way Of Obtaining A Voluntary Miranda Waiver, Yekaterina Berkovich

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I provides background information about the evolution of judicial treatment of juveniles and the admissibility of confessions. Part II analyzes the different approaches applied by federal and state courts to determine whether a juvenile's waiver of rights was voluntary and examines the flaws in those approaches. Part III proposes a new approach to remedy the problems courts have faced with the existing approaches and to provide consistent outcomes at the federal level.

The Federal Retreat From Protecting Defendants From Tainted Show-Up Identifications And The Superiority Of New York's Approach, Stephan Josephs

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prearraignment Lineup Procedures: Are Multiple Lineups Unduly Suggestive Or Sufficiently Reliable?, Jared R. Artura

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

It's Reasonable To Expect Privacy When Watching Adult Videos, Matthew Leonhardt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hipaa As An Evidentiary Rule: An Analysis Of Miguel M. And Its Impact , Jennifer Clark

Journal of Law and Health

In New York suppression of evidence is only appropriate where constitutional, statutory, or decisional authority mandates it, even if obtained by unethical or unlawful means. The courts have been split on how to apply this standard to evidence obtained in violation of HIPAA. In the case In re Miguel M., the New York Court of Appeals addressed this question for the first time, finding that such evidence should be suppressed. Because it is the first authoritative case in New York addressing the evidentiary impact of a HIPAA violation, it is tempting to read Miguel M. as creating a new evidentiary …

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.

Roving Border Patrols In New York – Sometimes The Drug Smuggler Does Not Get Convicted: The Legal Limitations Regarding Vehicle Stops And Consent Searches Based Upon Reasonable Suspicion - People V. Banisadr, Robert Mitchell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Do Automobile Passengers Have A Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy? An Analysis Of Reasonable Expectation Under The Fourth Amendment - People V. Howard, Lisa Belrose

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Inevitable Discovery Rule - Justice Served Or Justice Thwarted? - People V. Pinckney, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Accountability-Based Policing Can Reinforce - Or Replace - The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, David A. Harris

Articles

In Hudson v. Michigan, a knock-and-announce case, Justice Scalia's majority opinion came close to jettisoning the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The immense costs of the rule, Scalia said, outweigh whatever benefits might come from it. Moreover, police officers and police departments now generally follow the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, so the exclusionary rule has outlived the reasons that the Court adopted it in the first place. This viewpoint did not become the law because Justice Kennedy, one member of the five-vote majority, withheld his support from this section of the opinion. But the closeness of the vote on …

Wishing Petitioners To Death: Factual Misrepresentations In Fourth Circuit Capital Cases, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil: On Professor Nesson's Claims About Evidence Suppression, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Nesson's presentaiton at the Decision and Interference Litigation symposium, New York, New York, 1991.

Criminal Procedure—Scope Of The Exclusionary Rule—Inevitable Discovery Exception Adopted, Melanie J. Strigel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Prosecution At A Lohss: Time For Statutory Revision

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge And The Crime Burden, John Barker Waite

Michigan Law Review

One does not happily charge the judiciary with responsibility for the country's burden of crime, but the responsibility does in fact exist. Judges, though they may not encourage crime, interfere with its prevention in various ways. They deliberately restrict police efficiency in the discovery of criminals. They exempt from punishment many criminals who are discovered and whose guilt is evident. More seriously still, they so warp and alter the public's attitude toward crime and criminals as gravely to weaken the country's most effective crime preventive.