Law Commons^™

The Automobile Exception: What It Is And What It Is Not -- A Rationale In Search Of A Clearer Label, Charles E. Moylan Jr.

Mercer Law Review

The so-called "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment would pose few conceptual difficulties but for the simplistic assumption on the part of many lawyers and judges that the "automobile exception" has something to do with automobiles. It is the burden of this article to establish that that is not necessarily so. There are many legitimate warrantless searches of automobiles that do not remotely involve the "automobile exception." Conversely, there are some legitimate warrantless searches of non-automobiles that do. Our only real problem is that of coming to grips with the word "automobile."

"Automobile" means one thing …

Criminal Procedure—Filing By Information: Determination Of Probable Cause Required Before Extended Restraint On Liberty—Gerstein V. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), Cynthia B. Whitaker

Washington Law Review

Robert Pugh was arrested in Florida without a warrant and charged by prosecutor's information. Pugh and other incarcerated arrestees charged by information without a preliminary hearing brought a class action suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the charging procedure. Plaintiffs maintained that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment required that accused persons be accorded a determination of probable cause for detention soon after their arrest. They also argued that the prosecuting attorney was not sufficiently neutral or detached to make the necessary determination. The district court accepted the plaintiffs' arguments, and the Court of Appeals …

Subsequent Use Of Electronic Surveillance Interceptions And The Plain View Doctrine: Fourth Amendment Limitations On The Omnibus Crime Control Act, Raymond R. Kepner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Despite the critical examination to which many sections of Title III have been subjected, section 2517(5) has received little serious scrutiny from either the courts or the commentators. This note will analyze the constitutionality of the section in terms of the standards which the Supreme Court has articulated, both with respect to the law of search and seizure generally and with respect to electronic surveillance. This examination will reveal that section 2517(5) cannot be sustained under the existing contours of fourth amendment interpretation.

The Interception Of Communications Without A Court Order: Title Iii, Consent, And The Expectation Of Privacy, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Conspiracy And Federal Jurisdiction: From Crimmins To Feola, Mark Berger

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Warrantless Osha Inspections, Thomas Martin

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure Of The Media: A Statutory, Fourth Amendment And First Amendment Analysis, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

On the evening of October 10, 1974, police appeared at radio station KPFK-FM in Los Angeles with a warrant authorizing them to search the premises for a New World Liberation Front (NWLF) "communique" that took credit for a recent bombing. The officers conducted an intensive 8-hour search-combing files, listening to tapes, and looking through reporters' notes – finally concluding that the NWLF letter was not at the station. The KPFK search warrant was one of six that California law enforcement officials have executed at press offices since 1972. The circumstances surrounding the incident illustrate the rationale behind the recent development …