Law Commons^™

When Constitutional Worlds Colide: Resurrecting The Framers' Bill Of Rights And Criminal Procedure, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has been interpreting the Bill of Rights. Imagine Chief Justice John Marshall sitting in the dim, narrow Supreme Court chambers, pondering the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in United States v. Burr. Aaron Burr was charged with treason for planning to invade the Louisiana Territory and create a separate government there. To help prepare his defense, Burr wanted to see a letter written by General James Wilkinson to President Jefferson. In ruling on Burr's motion to compel disclosure, Marshall departed from the literal language of the Sixth Amendment - …

Recovering The Original Fourth Amendment, Thomas Y. Davies

Michigan Law Review

Claims regarding the original or intended meaning of constitutional texts are commonplace in constitutional argument and analysis. All such claims are subject to an implicit validity criterion - only historically authentic assertions should matter. The rub is that the original meaning commonly attributed to a constitutional text may not be authentic. The historical Fourth Amendment is a case in point. If American judges, lawyers, or law teachers were asked what the Framers intended when they adopted the Fourth Amendment, they would likely answer that the Framers intended that all searches and seizures conducted by government officers must be reasonable given …

The Life And Times Of Boyd V. United States (1886-1976), Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Boyd v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the fourth and fifth amendments create a zone of privacy encompassing an individual's person and property. The government, according to Boyd, cannot enter this zone, either by compelling an individual to testify against himself or by subpoenaing or seizing his books and papers for use as evidence against him in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding. The Court found an "intimate relation" between the two amendments such that the search and seizure of books and papers may be "unreasonable" even if conducted pursuant to a court order.

Over time, …

Constitutional Law-Search And Seizure, Howard A. Jacobs S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The most important step in the development of this constitutional provision came in 1886 in the famous case of Boyd v. United States. There the Court gave life to the Fourth Amendment by recognizing its intimate relation to the Fifth Amendment; thus laying the foundation for the federal rule that the Fifth Amendment protects every person from incrimination by the use of evidence obtained through search or seizure made in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. With the exception of a temporary setback in 1903, this rule, as restated in the Weeks case, has effectively weathered a …

Administrative Law - Compulsory Process To Obtain Evidence - Unreasonable Search And Seizure, William C. Wetherbee, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

That the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum must comply with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was first established in the case of Boyd v. United States. The writ was there obtained for the purpose of extracting from a person evidence which was to be used against him in a criminal proceeding or forfeiture. This compulsory process which gave the state possession of a man's personal papers to incriminate him was considered a violation of not only the Fifth, but also the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court could have reached the same result …

Taxation-Proceeding Before United States Board Of Tax Appeals -Validity Of Subpoena Duces Tecum - Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Royal E. Thompson

Michigan Law Review

In a proceeding for judicial process to compel defendant to obey a subpoena duces tecum issued by the United States Board of Tax Appeals, defendant asserted that the documents called for were irrelevant to the issue involved, and that the subpoena was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Held, a witness is not entitled to resist a subpoena for mere incompetency or irrelevancy. To question admissibility, the papers must be so manifestly irrelevant as to make it plain that it is a mere "fishing expedition." One paragraph of the subpoena was declared invalid, as lacking …