Law Commons^™

Suspicionless Drug Testing And Chandler V. Miller: Is The Supreme Court Making The Right Decisions, Ross H. Parr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

During the last decade, the United States Supreme Court has rendered four major decisions regarding the validity of suspicionless drug testing policies. Such drug testing policies have become a common way for employers and other interested parties-including the government-both to deter the use of drugs and to determine who is acting under the influence of illegal narcotics. Because government officials often randomly select individuals for drug testing, some of these individuals have charged that a governmental drug testing policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing in three cases decided between 1989 and 1997, but in …

An Alternative Approach To The Fourth Amendment In Public Schools: Balancing Students' Rights With School Safety, J. Chad Mitchell

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chandler V. Miller: The Supreme Court Closed The Door On The Factual Instances That Warrant Suspicionless Searches, Justin Scott

Mercer Law Review

Chandler v. Miller involved the constitutionality of a Georgia statute that required candidates for designated state offices to pass a drug test prior to qualifying for nomination or election.

Race, Rights, And Remedies In Criminal Adjudication, Pamela S. Karlan

Michigan Law Review

Once upon a time, back before the Warren Court, criminal procedure and racial justice were adjacent hinterlands in constitutional law's empire. In 1954, the fifth edition of Dowling's constitutional law casebook contained one chapter on "procedural due process" in which six of the eight cases were about criminal justice, and three of those - Powell v. Alabama, Moore v. Dempsey, and Bailey v. Alabama - were as much about race as they were about crime. A few pages later, two slender chapters on the "national protection of civil rights" and "equal protection of the laws" contained seven and nine decisions, …

Choosing Perspectives In Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Bacigal examines the Supreme Court's use of various perspectives in examining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court purports to rely on a consistent method of constitutional analysis when rendering decisions on Fourth Amendment issues, the case law in this area indicates that the Court is influenced sometimes by the citizen's perspective, sometimes by the police officers' perspective, and sometimes by the perspective of the hypothesized reasonable person.

After identifying the role of perspectives in a number of seminal Court decisions, Professor Bacigal discusses the benefits and limitations of the Court's reliance on …

The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Today: The Demands Of The Fourth Amendment, Nix, And Murray, And The Disagreement Among The Federal Circuits, Troy E. Golden

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

"We The People" And Our Enduring Values, Susan Bandes

Michigan Law Review

Akhil Amar chides legal scholars for believing that the current system of criminal procedure, both substantive and remedial, is constitutionally compelled. He writes, "Scholars should know better, but too few of those who write in criminal procedure do serious, sustained scholarship in constitutional law generally, or in fields like federal jurisdiction and remedies" (p. 115). Amar believes, as I do, that criminal procedure has been impoverished by its failure to connect to "larger themes of constitutional, remedial and jurisdictional theory" (p. 115). But as one who has done serious, sustained scholarship in all the areas Amar mentions - or so …

Maryland V. Wilson: The Fading Fourth Amendment, Gregory Lineberry

Mercer Law Review

In Maryland v. Wilson, the United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may order a passenger of a lawfully stepped car to exit the vehicle. This "bright-line rule" allows these intrusions as a matter of course and does not require case-by-case determination.

Race And The Fourth Amendment, Tracey Maclin

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court held that pretextual traffic stops do not raise Fourth Amendment concerns. In this Article, Professor Maclin contends that by requiring only probable cause of a traffic offense to justify pretextual seizures, the Court mistakenly ignores racial impact when marking the protective boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. Professor Maclin argues that race matters when measuring the dynamics and legitimacy of certain police-citizen encounters. Pretextual traffic stops unreasonably use racial targeting, therefore, the Court should make racial impact a factor in determining the constitutionality of the pretextual seizure.

Professor Maclin begins by examining objective, …

Ad Hoc Adjudication: People V. Champion, Another Confusing Element In The Turmoil Following Minnesota V. Dickerson, Audra A. Dial

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. King

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Queens County: People V. Brewer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Off Broadway: The Supreme Court's Criminal Law Decisions In The 1996 Term Take Second Stage In An Historic Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Passenger Profiling: A Greater Terror Than Terrorism Itself, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 167 (1998), Donna Smith

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Claims For Damages For Violations Of State Constitutional Rights - Analysis Of The Recent Court Of Appeals Decision In Brown V. New York; The Resolved And Unresolved Issues, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

New York Vs. "The Rest Of The Country": State Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Barry Latzer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What's In A Word? A Comparative Analysis Of Article I, § 12 Of The New York State Constitution And The Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution As Interpreted By The New York Court Of Appeals And The United States Supreme Court, Douglas Holden Wigdor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Bronx County: People V. Johnson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, New York County: People V. Rodgers

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Court Of Appeals: People V. Funches

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Court Of Appeals: People V. Turriago

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: People V. Smith

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Legal Future Of Reality Cop Shows: Parker V. Boyer Dismisses 1983 Claims Against Police Officers And Television Stations Jointly Engaged In Searches Of Homes, Christopher A. Rothe

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: People V. Lafontaine

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. Hichez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.