Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 26 of 26
Full-Text Articles in Law
Discussing Privacy In Sec Subpoena Practice After Carpenter V. United States, William A. Ballentine
Discussing Privacy In Sec Subpoena Practice After Carpenter V. United States, William A. Ballentine
Chicago-Kent Law Review
No abstract provided.
Law School News: 'Unmatched Opportunities' 12-16-2020, Michael M. Bowden
Law School News: 'Unmatched Opportunities' 12-16-2020, Michael M. Bowden
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
A New Era: Digital Curtilage And Alexa-Enabled Smart Home Devices, Johanna Sanchez
A New Era: Digital Curtilage And Alexa-Enabled Smart Home Devices, Johanna Sanchez
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
In General Public Use: An Unnecessary Test In Fourth Amendment Searches Using Advanced Sensing Technology, Mike Petridis
In General Public Use: An Unnecessary Test In Fourth Amendment Searches Using Advanced Sensing Technology, Mike Petridis
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones
Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones
Cleveland State Law Review
Courts are divided as to whether law enforcement can collect cell phone location information in real-time without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment prior to law enforcement’s collection of real-time cell phone location information. Courts that have required a warrant prior to the government’s collection of real-time cell phone location information have considered the length of surveillance. This should not be a factor. The growing prevalence and usage of cell phones and cell phone technology, the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, and United States …
Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide.* Applying The Fourth Amendment To Connected Cars In The Internet-Of-Things Era, Gregory C. Brown, Jr.
Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide.* Applying The Fourth Amendment To Connected Cars In The Internet-Of-Things Era, Gregory C. Brown, Jr.
Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development
(Excerpt)
Part I of this Note will briefly discuss the key components of a Connected Car, identify who collects the data from the Car, and examine the various uses for the data. Part I also explores whether Car owners consent to the collection of their Car’s data. Part II-A will trace the historical development of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which generally permits law-enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. Part II-B will discuss how the Supreme Court has applied the Fourth Amendment to pre-Internet technologies. Part II-C will discuss two recent Fourth Amendment Supreme …
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Fourth Amendment Right: Samson Court Errs In Choosing Proper Analytical Framework, Errs In Result, Parolees Lose Fourth Amendment Protection, Rachael A. Lynch
Akron Law Review
This Note will follow the Fourth Amendment from its origins to its modern application to parolee rights, as evidenced by the Samson Court. Part II focuses on the Fourth Amendment, from the circumstances surrounding its adoption to modern court cases that have applied its tenets to prisoners, probationers, and, finally, parolees. Part III details the Supreme Court’s decision in Samson v. California, including a thorough discussion of the facts that gave rise to the case and lower court decisions. Part IV explores the problems with the Court’s framework and suggests other possible frameworks the Court could have used to come …
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall
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 …
We Can Do This The Easy Way Or The Hard Way: The Use Of Deceit To Induce Consent Searches, Rebecca Strauss
We Can Do This The Easy Way Or The Hard Way: The Use Of Deceit To Induce Consent Searches, Rebecca Strauss
Michigan Law Review
In October of 1995, Aaron Salvo was studying and living at Ashland College. College officials informed local FBI agents that they suspected Salvo of possible child molestation and related conduct based on incriminating electronic mail. FBI agents approached Salvo at his dormitory, asked to speak with him in private about the suspicious mail, and suggested they speak in Salvo's dorm room. Salvo agreed to speak with the officers, but declined to do so in his room because his roommate was there, and he did not want to get anyone else involved in the embarrassing nature of the upcoming conversation. Salvo …
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
Protective Sweep Incident To A Lawful Arrest: An Analysis Of Its Validity Under The Federal And New York State Constitution, Steven M. Fox
Protective Sweep Incident To A Lawful Arrest: An Analysis Of Its Validity Under The Federal And New York State Constitution, Steven M. Fox
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fourth Amendment, William E. Hellerstein
An Ex Parte Order May Not Serve The Function Of A Search Warrant Under The Fourth Amendment To Authorize A Physical Intrusion In Connection With A "Search" For Conversations--People V. Grossman, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
There was probable cause to believe that defendant Scandifia was implicated in a larceny of jewelry by false pretenses. Pursuant to section 813-a of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court in New York County issued an ex parte order authorizing the installation of an eavesdropping device in a service station owned by Scandifia. Shortly thereafter, police broke into the station's private office and installed a microphone. Conversations were overheard which indicated that defendant Grossman had in his possession two pistols received from Scandifia. An affidavit setting forth these conversations supplied the sole probable cause for a …
Judge And The Crime Burden, John Barker Waite
Judge And The Crime Burden, John Barker Waite
Michigan Law Review
One does not happily charge the judiciary with responsibility for the country's burden of crime, but the responsibility does in fact exist. Judges, though they may not encourage crime, interfere with its prevention in various ways. They deliberately restrict police efficiency in the discovery of criminals. They exempt from punishment many criminals who are discovered and whose guilt is evident. More seriously still, they so warp and alter the public's attitude toward crime and criminals as gravely to weaken the country's most effective crime preventive.