Law Commons^™

The Purpose Of The Fourth Amendment And Crafting Rules To Implement That Purpose, Thomas K. Clancy

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Striking A Balance: The Speech Or Debate Clause’S Testimonial Privilege And Policing Government Corruption, Jay Rothrock

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"

Supreme Court Holds Grand Jury Witnesses Absolutely Immune From § 1983 Liability, Martin Schwartz

Scholarly Works

This article discusses the Supreme Court's ruling in Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012), which extended the absolute witness immunity recognized in Briscoe v. LaHue, to grand jury witnesses. In an unanimous opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the Court held that grand jury witnesses are absolutely immune from §1983 liability for their testimony, and even for conspiring to give false testimony.

Ensuring Miranda’S Right To Counsel Abroad, David Henek '12

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Fortifies Qualified Immunity For Law Enforcement Officers In Warrant Cases, Martin Schwartz

Scholarly Works

This article analyzes the significance of the United States Supreme Court decision in Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1652 (2012), upon §1983 Fourth Amendment claims asserted against state and local law enforcement officers who apply for and enforce warrants. Millender held that police officers who sought and executed a very broad warrant authorizing them to search a residence for guns and gang related material were protected by qualified immunity. The author asserts that §1983 plaintiffs, who seek to recover damages based upon either the application or execution of an allegedly unconstitutional warrant, will now have to overcome various layers of …

Everyman's Exclusionary Rule: The Exclusionary Rule And The Rule Of Law (Or Why Conservatives Should Embrace The Exclusionary Rule), Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: New York Vs. Federal Approach - People V. Keita, Tillie S. Mirman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Searching Secrets, Nita A. Farahany

Faculty Scholarship

A Fourth Amendment violation has traditionally involved a physical intrusion such as the search of a house or the seizure of a person or her papers. Today, investigators rarely need to break down doors, rummage through drawers, or invade one’s peace and repose to obtain incriminating evidence in an investigation. Instead, the government may unobtrusively intercept information from electronic files, GPS transmissions, and intangible communications. In the near future, it may even be possible to intercept information directly from suspects’ brains. Courts and scholars have analogized modern searches for information to searches of tangible property like containers and have treated …

Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw

Touro Law Review

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court's decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring …

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi

Publications

This Article argues that it is time to overrule Mapp v. Ohio. It contends that the exclusionary rule is outdated because a tough deterrent sanction is difficult to reconcile with a criminal justice system where victims are increasingly seen to have a stake in criminal cases. The rule is also increasingly outdated in its epistemological assumption which insists officers act on "reasons" that they can articulate and which disparages actions based on "hunches" or "feelings." This assumption runs counter to a large body of neuroscience research suggesting that humans often "feel" or "sense" danger, sometimes even at a subconscious …

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi

University of Colorado Law Review

This Article argues that it is time to overrule Mapp v. Ohio. It contends that the exclusionary rule is outdated because a tough deterrent sanction is difficult to reconcile with a criminal justice system where victims are increasingly seen to have a stake in criminal cases. The rule is also increasingly outdated in its epistemological assumption which insists officers act on "reasons" that they can articulate and which disparages actions based on "hunches" or "feelings." This assumption runs counter to a large body of neuroscience research suggesting that humans often "feel" or "sense" danger, sometimes even at a subconscious level, …

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment And Terrorism, John Burkoff

Articles

The important questions we need to ask and to answer B in the perilous times in which we live B is whether the Fourth Amendment applies in the same fashion not just to run of the mill criminals, but also to terrorists and suspected terrorists, individuals who are committing or who have committed B or who may be poised to commit B acts aimed at the destruction of extremely large numbers of people? Professor Burkoff argues that we can protect ourselves from cataclysmic threats of this sort and still maintain a fair and objective application of Fourth Amendment doctrine that …

Unconstitutional Courses, Frederic M. Bloom

Publications

By now, we almost expect Congress to fail. Nearly every time the federal courts announce a controversial decision, Congress issues a call to rein in "runaway" federal judges. And nearly every time Congress makes a "jurisdiction-stripping" threat, it comes to nothing.

But if Congress's threats possess little fire, we have still been distracted by their smoke. This Article argues that Congress's noisy calls have obscured another potent threat to the "judicial Power": the Supreme Court itself. On occasion, this Article asserts, the Court reshapes and abuses the "judicial Power"--not through bold pronouncements or obvious doctrinal revisions, but through something more …

'A Flame Of Fire': The Fourth Amendment In Perilous Times, John Burkoff

Articles

The important questions we need to ask and to answer in the perilous times in which we live is whether the Fourth Amendment applies in the same fashion not just to run of the mill criminals, but also to terrorists and suspected terrorists, individuals who are committing or who have committed B or who may be poised to commit B acts aimed at the destruction of extremely large numbers of people? Professor Burkoff argues that we can protect ourselves from cataclysmic threats of this sort and still maintain a fair and objective application of Fourth Amendment doctrine that respects our …

Thermal Imaging And The Fourth Amendment: The Role Of The Katz Test In The Aftermath Of Kyllo V. United States, Gregory Gomez

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Accountability Solutions In The Consent Search And Seizure Wasteland, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

The legal and social issues that have emerged out of the doctrine that people in America have a right against unreasonable government instituted searches and seizures have dominated the dialogue and controversy in the American criminal justice system over the last three decades. A large portion of the debate has centered around the controversial exclusionary rule, which frees the sometimes unmistakably guilty because of irregularities in police procedure.

The notion that society suffers when criminals go free because of the constable's blunder has struck a decidedly political note in the discussion over criminal justice reform. Many observers are quick to …

Choosing Perspectives In Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

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 …

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.

Deciding The Stop And Frisk Cases: A Look Inside The Supreme Court's Conference, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

In our system of constitutional decision-making, the Supreme Court makes law as an institution in its formal written opinions. The Court and its individual members make their official legal marks in the printed pages of the United States Reports. In June 1968, in Terry v. Ohio and Sibron v. New York, the two decisions that approved the constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of police stop and frisk practices, the Court filled many official pages with rich discussion. Over the ensuing thirty years, these Court and individual opinions have shaped the course of constitutional analysis in our courts and guided the …

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

Touro Law Review

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.