Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Fifth Amendment (6)
- Police misconduct (4)
- Authority (3)
- Fourth Amendment (3)
- Miranda v. Arizona (3)
-
- Power (3)
- Searches (3)
- Custodial interrogation (2)
- Emergencies (2)
- New York v. Quarles (2)
- Public safety (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Confessions (1)
- Conspiracy (1)
- Corruption (1)
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- Immunity (1)
- Perjury (1)
- Section 1983 (1)
- Self-incrimination (1)
- Testimony (1)
- Warren Court (1)
- Witnesses (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner
The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues, however, that the appropriate inquiry under Quarles is whether an actual and reasonable belief in an emergency motivated the interrogating officer. This Note proposes a two-prong test to facilitate this inquiry. The subjective motivation prong evaluates the officer's subjective motivation as revealed by objective factors: the. content of the officer's questions, when he asked them, and when the suspect received Miranda warnings. The objective reasonableness prong looks at the objective circumstances to determine the reasonableness of the officer's belief in an emergency.
Part I demonstrates that the Quarles opinion actually contemplates and requires analysis of the officer's …
The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner
The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues, however, that the appropriate inquiry under Quarles is whether an actual and reasonable belief in an emergency motivated the interrogating officer. This Note proposes a two-prong test to facilitate this inquiry. The subjective motivation prong evaluates the officer's subjective motivation as revealed by objective factors: the. content of the officer's questions, when he asked them, and when the suspect received Miranda warnings. The objective reasonableness prong looks at the objective circumstances to determine the reasonableness of the officer's belief in an emergency.
Part I demonstrates that the Quarles opinion actually contemplates and requires analysis of the officer's …
The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski
The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that witnesses who conspire with a state official to present perjured testimony at a judicial proceeding should not have absolute immunity from a section 1983 suit for damages. Part I provides background information on section 1983 and explains why a witness-state conspiracy satisfies the requirements of a section 1983 cause of action. Part I also summarizes the Supreme Court's doctrinal approach to section 1983 immunity. Finally, Part I examines two Supreme Court cases which are relevant to the issue of immunity for witness conspirators: Briscoe v. LaHue, and Malley v. Briggs. Part II applies the …
Improving Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Welsh S. White
Improving Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
A Review of The Failure of the Criminal Procedure Revolution by Craig M. Bradley
Chopping Miranda Down To Size, Michael Chertoff
Chopping Miranda Down To Size, Michael Chertoff
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Confessions, Truth, and the Law by Joseph D. Grano
Response: The Problems With Privacy's Problem, Louis Michael Seidman
Response: The Problems With Privacy's Problem, Louis Michael Seidman
Michigan Law Review
A Response to William J. Stuntz's "Privacy's Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure"
Privacy's Problem And The Law Of Criminal Procedure, William J. Stuntz
Privacy's Problem And The Law Of Criminal Procedure, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
Part I of this article addresses the connection between privacy-based limits on police authority and substantive limits on government power as a general matter. Part II briefly addresses the effects of that connection on Fourth and Fifth Amendment law, both past and present. Part ID suggests that privacy protection has a deeper problem: it tends to obscure more serious harms that attend police misconduct, harms that flow not from information disclosure but from the police use of force. The upshot is that criminal procedure would be better off with less attention to privacy, at least as privacy is defined in …
Reply, William J. Stuntz
Reply, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
A Reply to Louis Michael Seidman's Response