Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Arizona V. Gant: The Good, The Bad, And The Meaning Of Reasonable Belief, Geoffrey S. Corn
Arizona V. Gant: The Good, The Bad, And The Meaning Of Reasonable Belief, Geoffrey S. Corn
Geoffrey S. Corn
Reasonable belief. Use of this phrase by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant transformed what could have been a clear and logical holding into a source of potential uncertainty. At its core, Gant constricts the authority to search an automobile incident to lawful arrest (SITLA), an authority established by the Court almost thirty years earlier in New York v. Belton. The Court concluded Belton had evolved to a point that could no longer be justified by the underlying exigency rationale for SITLA, creating an automatic and unrestricted search authority whenever the police arrested an occupant or recent occupant of …
Targeting, Command Judgment, And A Proposed Quantum Of Proof Component: A Fourth Amendment Lesson In Contextual Reasonableness, Geoffrey S. Corn
Targeting, Command Judgment, And A Proposed Quantum Of Proof Component: A Fourth Amendment Lesson In Contextual Reasonableness, Geoffrey S. Corn
Geoffrey S. Corn
No decision by a military commander engaged in hostilities has more profound consequence than the decision to launch an attack. Pursuant to the law of armed conflict (LOAC), that decision must be based on the judgment that the object of attack – a person, place, or thing - qualifies as a lawful military objective. This judgment almost always sets in motion the application of deadly combat power, and routinely produces loss of life or grievous bodily injury, often times to individuals and property not the intended object of attack, but considered ‘collateral damage.’ In operational terms, this judgment determines whether …