Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Search Incident To Probable Cause?: The Intersection Of Rawlings And Knowles, Marissa Perry
Search Incident To Probable Cause?: The Intersection Of Rawlings And Knowles, Marissa Perry
Michigan Law Review
The search incident to arrest exception authorizes an officer to search an arrestee’s person and his or her area of immediate control. This exception is based on two historical justifications: officer safety and evidence preservation. While much of search incident to arrest doctrine is settled, tension exists between two Supreme Court cases, Rawlings v. Kentucky and Knowles v. Iowa, and a crucial question remains unanswered: Must an officer decide to make an arrest prior to commencing a search? In Rawlings, the Supreme Court stated that a search may precede a formal arrest if the arrest follows quickly thereafter. In Knowles, …
Griggs At Midlife, Deborah A. Widiss
Griggs At Midlife, Deborah A. Widiss
Michigan Law Review
Not all Supreme Court cases have a midlife crisis. But it is fair to say that Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which recently turned forty, has some serious symptoms. Griggs established a foundational proposition of employment discrimination law known as disparate impact liability: policies that significantly disadvantage racial minority or female employees can violate federal employment discrimination law, even if there is no evidence that the employer “intended” to discriminate. Griggs is frequently described as one of the most important decisions of the civil rights era, compared to Brown v. Board of Education for its “momentous social consequences.” In 1989, …
On Strict Liability Crimes: Preserving A Moral Framework For Criminal Intent In An Intent-Free Moral World, W. Robert Thomas
On Strict Liability Crimes: Preserving A Moral Framework For Criminal Intent In An Intent-Free Moral World, W. Robert Thomas
Michigan Law Review
The law has long recognized a presumption against criminal strict liability. This Note situates that presumption in terms of moral intuitions about the role of intention and the unique nature of criminal punishment. Two sources-recent laws from state legislatures and recent advances in moral philosophy-pose distinct challenges to the presumption against strict liability crimes. This Note offers a solution to the philosophical problem that informs how courts could address the legislative problem. First, it argues that the purported problem from philosophy stems from a mistaken relationship drawn between criminal law and morality. Second, it outlines a slightly more nuanced moral …
First Amendment Equal Protection: On Discretion, Inequality, And Participation, Daniel P. Tokaji
First Amendment Equal Protection: On Discretion, Inequality, And Participation, Daniel P. Tokaji
Michigan Law Review
The tension between equality and discretion lies at the heart of some of the most vexing questions of constitutional law. The considerable discretion that many official decisionmakers wield raises the spectre that violations of equality norms will sometimes escape detection. This is true in a variety of settings, whether discretion lies over speakers' access to public fora, implementation of the death penalty, or the recounting of votes. Is the First Amendment violated, for example, when a city ordinance gives local officials broad discretion to determine the conditions under which political demonstrations may take place? Is equal protection denied where the …
Process, The Constitution, And Substantive Criminal Law, Louis D. Bilionis
Process, The Constitution, And Substantive Criminal Law, Louis D. Bilionis
Michigan Law Review
Criminal law scholars have pined for a substantive constitutional criminal law ever since Henry Hart and Herbert Packer first embraced the notion in the late 1950s and early 1960s. To this day, scholars continue to search for a theory fhat giv:es content to, in Hart's words, "the unmistakable indications that the Constitution means something definite and spμiething serious when it speaks of 'crime.'" To their dismay, the Supreme Court has - with two exceptions - seemingly resisted the notion. The two exceptions are familiar. First came the 1957 case of Lambert v. California, in which the Court came as close …
The Last Minuet: Disparate Treatment After Hicks, Deborah C. Malamud
The Last Minuet: Disparate Treatment After Hicks, Deborah C. Malamud
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of this article is to explain why the Court's much-maligned decision in Hicks was correct, and to further argue that in the aftermath of Hicks, the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine proof structure ought to be abandoned.
The Last Minuet: Disparate Treatment After Hicks, Deborah C. Malamud
The Last Minuet: Disparate Treatment After Hicks, Deborah C. Malamud
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of this article is to explain why the Court's much-maligned decision in Hicks was correct, and to further argue that in the aftermath of Hicks, the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine proof structure ought to be abandoned.
Constitutional Law--Due Process And The Bill Of Rights--Self-Incrimination, F. William Hutchinson
Constitutional Law--Due Process And The Bill Of Rights--Self-Incrimination, F. William Hutchinson
Michigan Law Review
In the course of evolving workable doctrines which give substance and meaning to the skeletal phrase "due process of law" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment to limit state action, the Supreme Court has frequently been called on to determine the scope of the several prohibitions and guarantees of the Bill of Rights of the federal Constitution. This general problem, and more particularly the application of the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause to state criminal proceedings, was again presented in a recent case and resulted in a sharp division of opinion within the Court.
Federal Practice - Power Of United States Supreme Court To Entertain Writ Of Certiorari Where Appeal Has Been Erroneously Taken
Michigan Law Review
Judgment for the plaintiff in a law action was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, first circuit, and defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and at the same time petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and appellee contended that the petition for certiorari could not be entertained under par. (b) of sec. 240, Judicial Code, as amended by Act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938, 939; U.S. C. A. tit. 28, sec. 347). Held, that the writ of certiorari could be granted, …