Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Why Arrest?, Rachel A. Harmon
Why Arrest?, Rachel A. Harmon
Michigan Law Review
Arrests are the paradigmatic police activity. Though the practice of arrests in the United States, especially arrests involving minority suspects, is under attack, even critics widely assume the power to arrest is essential to policing. As a result, neither commentators nor scholars have asked why police need to make arrests. This Article takes up that question, and it argues that the power to arrest and the use of that power should be curtailed. The twelve million arrests police conduct each year are harmful not only to the individual arrested but also to their families and communities and to society as …
The Problem Of Policing, Rachel A. Harmon
The Problem Of Policing, Rachel A. Harmon
Michigan Law Review
The legal problem of policing is how to regulate police authority to permit officers to enforce law while also protecting individual liberty and minimizing the social costs the police impose. Courts and commentators have largely treated the problem of policing as limited to preventing violations of constitutional rights and its solution as the judicial definition and enforcement of those rights. But constitutional law and courts alone are necessarily inadequate to regulate the police. Constitutional law does not protect important interests below the constitutional threshold or effectively address the distributional impacts of law enforcement activities. Nor can the judiciary adequately assess …
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
Brutality In Blue: Community, Authority, And The Elusive Promise Of Police Reform, Debra Ann Livingston
Brutality In Blue: Community, Authority, And The Elusive Promise Of Police Reform, Debra Ann Livingston
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force by Jerome H. Skolnick and James J. Fyfe
Tempered Zeal: A Columbia Law Professor's Year On The Streets With The New York City Police, Carol J. Sulcoski
Tempered Zeal: A Columbia Law Professor's Year On The Streets With The New York City Police, Carol J. Sulcoski
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Tempered Zeal: A Columbia Law Professor's Year on the Streets with the New York City Police
A Board Does Not A Bench Make: Denying Quasi-Judicial Immunity To Parole Board Members In Section 1983 Damages Actions, Julio A. Thompson
A Board Does Not A Bench Make: Denying Quasi-Judicial Immunity To Parole Board Members In Section 1983 Damages Actions, Julio A. Thompson
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that neither the majority nor the minority approach is realistic. A thorough examination of the parole process and section 1983 litigation will show that a third approach is more appropriate - that parole board members are entitled only to qualified immunity for all actions taken within the scope of their official duties. Part I argues that parole board members should not enjoy absolute, quasi-judicial immunity because the parole board decisionmaking process is not "functionally comparable" to judicial decisionmaking. The differences in procedure, political accountability, training, and background lead to two very different systems. Part II shows that …