Law Commons^™

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 …

The Role Of The Prosecutor And The Grand Jury In Police Use Of Deadly Force Cases: Restoring The Grand Jury To Its Original Purpose, Ric Simmons

Cleveland State Law Review

In deciding whether and what to charge in a criminal case, the prosecutor looks to three different factors. The first is legal: is there probable cause that the defendant committed this crime? The second is practical: if the case goes to trial, will there be sufficient evidence to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt of this crime? And the third is equitable: should the defendant be charged with this crime? The prosecutor is uniquely qualified to answer the first and second question, but the third is a bit trickier. If it is used properly, the grand jury could provide …

Arbitrary Law Enforcement Is Unreasonable: Whren's Failure To Hold Police Accountable For Traffic Enforcement Policies, Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Whren v. United States is surely a leading contender for the most controversial and heavily criticized Supreme Court case that was decided in a short, unanimous opinion. The slip opinion is only thirteen pages long, and provoked no dissents or even concurring opinions. Critical reaction has been overwhelmingly negative. Criticism not withstanding, the Court has not retreated from Whren, but continues to repeat its core holding.

Part I frames the problem in Whren with a story. Part II sets forth the fundamental Fourth Amendment principle underlying this article—the prohibition against arbitrary search and seizure. Part III explains how arbitrariness …

Crimes And Errors Impossible To Commit: Defining Away The Fourth Amendment - Wyoming V. Houghton, Rachel Gader-Shafran

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note contends that the Court's decision to adopt the Houghton approach to the automobile warrant exception is problematic for three reasons. First, the Court has erroneously interpreted the historical evidence behind the creation of the Fourth Amendment. Second, the Court, by chipping away at stare decisis, is disrupting the foundations of American jurisprudence and the development of the law. Third, by creating a new lexicon, changing the meanings of the words, the Court is trying to define away the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. This Note will briefly summarize the facts of Houghton and review the historical purpose …

Fourth Amendment Right Or Fourth Amendment Wrong: Ins Power After The Immigration Reform And Control Act Of 1986, Steven L. Miller

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the legal system's scrutiny of the fourth amendment implications of INS workplace sweeps and suggests that the recent adoption of the IRCA (Immigration Reform and Control Act) and its criminal sanctions dictate the development of a higher standard for upholding the constitutionality of workplace raids. Consideration is first given to the type of INS activity which is under scrutiny in the course of a workplace sweep. Next, Part III will examine the development of case law pertaining to the current power of the INS to constitutionally conduct workplace sweeps under the fourth amendment. Part IV will then …