Law Commons^™

The Supreme Court's Long And Perhaps Unnecessary Struggle To Find A Standard Of Culpability To Regulate The Federal Exclusionary Remedy For Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Violations, Melvyn H. Zarr

Maine Law Review

On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States. In Herring, the defendant moved to suppress evidence that he alleged was seized as a result of an arrest that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court approved the decision below to deny suppression of the evidence. The decision set off a flurry of speculation that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not see its 100th birthday in 2014. A headline in the New York Times of January 31 declared: “Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling.” Another …

It’S In The Bag: Voluntariness, Scope, And The Authority To Grant Consent - United States V. Harris, Daniel Fier

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Criminal Procedure—Exclusionary Rule—No Good Faith Exception To The Arkansas Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Dale Scroggins

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule—A Reply To Attorney General Smith, John Wesley Hall Jr.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure- Permissible Scope Of A Search Incident To A Valid Custodial Arrest

University of Richmond Law Review

While the fourth amendment does not make a warrant mandatory for all searches, it does require that all searches meet the test of reasonableness. The search incident to a lawful arrest is one of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement. The incidental search doctrine and the exclusionary rule were first discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States. The Supreme Court's failure to enunciate definitive standards in defining the permissible scope of a search incident to an arrest has created numerous problems for the courts and police. The limitations on the permissible scope of a …

Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - Admissibility In A Federal Court Of Evidence Illegally Obtained By State Officers, Robert J. Paley

Michigan Law Review

In response to a call from a citizen whose suspicions had been aroused by the actions of the defendant and a companion, Maryland police unlawfully arrested the companion and searched the premises occupied by him and the defendant. & a result of this search, money was found which had been stolen in the District of Columbia. Although the search was illegal under Maryland law and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, this money was used as evidence to convict the defendant of housebreaking and larceny in the District of Columbia federal court. On appeal, held, conviction reversed and remanded …

Evidence - Search And Seizure - Standing To Suppress Evidence Obtained By Unconstitutional Search And Seizure, Robert C. Casad S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The most radical departure of the new California doctrine from federal precedents, however, lies in the rejection of the requirement of "standing" which the federal courts have always imposed. In People v. Martin the California court announced its willingness to permit any criminal defendant to move for the exclusion of evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure -regardless of whether it was his premises that were searched or his property that was seized.

Rejection of the requirement of standing by this outstanding court calls for a re-evaluation of the requirement as it is imposed in every other jurisdiction that observes …