Law Commons^™

Supreme Court's Treatment Of Open Fields: A Comment On Oliver And Thornton, Barbara Rockhill Edwards

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Searching For The Fourth Amendment, John M.A. Dipippa

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Applicability Of Miranda Warnings To Non-Felony Offenses: Is The Proper Standard "Custodial Interrogation" Or "Severity Of The Offense"?, Kenneth W. Gaul

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that the proper standard for determining the necessity of the Miranda warnings for any offense is the existence of custodial interrogation. When interrogation for non-felony offenses takes place in a custodial atmosphere, Miranda warnings should be required, as they are for more serious offenses. Part I summarizes the two basic approaches taken by courts that have confronted the question of the applicability of the Miranda warnings to non-felony offenses. Part Ill argues that neither the rationale for the Miranda doctrine nor the roots of the fifth amendment support a distinction based on the severity of the offense …

Probable Cause And Common Sense: A Reply To The Critics Of Illinois V. Gates, Joseph D. Grano

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this article reviews Gates's actual holding. Although one can view much of the Court's more interesting discussion of the two-pronged test as dicta, the majority and dissenters clearly did not regard it as such. The majority and dissenters disagreed, however, not only over the appropriate hearsay test but, more fundamentally, over the nature of probable cause itself. I will argue that one must resolve this more basic disagreement before properly addressing the hearsay issue.

Part II examines probable cause from an historical perspective. In this part, I attempt to demonstrate that both the English common law …

"Seizures" Typology: Classifying Detentions Of The Person To Resolve Warrant, Grounds, And Search Issues, Wayne R. Lafave

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This seizures typology constitutes a most important part of extant fourth amendment doctrine. The precision with which and perspective from which such classifications are drawn is obviously a matter of considerable interest to the police, who must in the first instance resolve these warrant, grounds, and search issues. It is also an appropriate subject of broader concern, as the shape of these categories has a critical bearing upon the effectiveness of our law enforcement processes and the extent of our protected liberty and privacy. The following comments are directed to this seizures typology.

The Fourth Amendment And The Control Of Police Discretion, William J. Mertens

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment protects the security of people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" in two distinct (if overlapping) ways. First, it requires a sufficiently weighty public interest before the government's agents are allowed to search or seize. Thus, for example, probable cause is required for arrest. Whatever uncertainty there may be in the phrase "probable cause" (and, for that matter, however indefinite the idea of "arrest" may have become), in this context, at least, the probable cause standard requires the demonstration of objective facts that point with some probability to the guilt for some particular offense of the person arrested. …

The Pretext Search Doctrine: Now You See It, Now You Don't, John M. Burkoff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One can only hope, to put it bluntly, that the Supreme Court majority in Villamonte-Marquez did not mean what it seemed to have said. Indeed, there is some evidence that this is precisely the case. In the same Term Villamonte-Marquez was decided, the Court also decided Texas v. Brown. In Brown, the Supreme Court continued to recognize and respond to the problem of pretext searches. In other words, the Court still acts as if the pretext search doctrine remains vital, despite the apparent body blow delivered to it in Scott and Villamonte-Marquez. The remainder of this Article …

United States V. Villamonte-Marquez: Burial At Sea For The Fourth Amendment, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 545 (1984), William J. Arendt

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illinois V. Gates: Probable Cause Redefined, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 335 (1984), James W. Reilley, Barry E. Witlin, Christine P. Curran

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Yonn: Expanding The Government's Capability To Eavesdrop, Michael W. Cusick

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure - Fourth Amendment - In Determining Whether An Affidavit Based Upon An Informant's Tip Constitutes Probable Cause To Issue A Search Warrant, A Magistrate Is To Apply A Totality Of Circumstances Approach, Jamieson M. Schiff

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aerial Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 455 (1984), Alan C. Schaefer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Seizures Of The Fourth Kind: Changing The Rules, Harry M. Caldwell

Cleveland State Law Review

While a large percentage of police-citizen encounters may be classified readily as falling within the protections of the fourth amendment, a number of them are difficult to categorize. Since the decision in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court has been grappling with the issue of when such encounters do, in fact, mandate fourth amendment protection. The Court's most recent pronouncement in this area, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, involved an Immigration and Naturalization Service factory sweep and the ensuing encounter between immigration officials and plant employees. In this significant and controversial opinion, the Court found that the Delgado …

Criminal Procedure - Vessels In Inland Waters Are Subject To Suspicionless Boarding - United States V. Villamonte-Marquez, Wallace R. Young Jr.

Campbell Law Review

The purpose of this Note is to examine the fourth amendment implications of the holding in Villamonte-Marquez. The Note will examine the Court's treatment of Section 1581(a) under which the search arose, analyze the judicial treatment of the decisions relied on by the Court and criticize the Court's treatment of the "reasonableness" of the governmental intrusion. The Note concludes that because private cabin-boaters have great interests against arbitrary intrusion by officials, cases such as Villamonte-Marquez should be scrutinized more carefully to preserve the protection of the fourth amendment.