Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 11 of 11

Full-Text Articles in Law

Moving Targets: Placing The Good Faith Doctrine In The Context Of Fragmented Policing, Hadar Aviram, Jeremy Seymour, Richard A. Leo Jan 2010

Moving Targets: Placing The Good Faith Doctrine In The Context Of Fragmented Policing, Hadar Aviram, Jeremy Seymour, Richard A. Leo

Fordham Urban Law Journal

The debate sparked by Herring v. United States is a microcosm of the quintessential debate about the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule and ultimately the appropriate breadth of police authority and constitutional review by courts. Offering a new reading of the decision, this article argues that Herring reflects a healthy dosage of real politic and an acknowledgment that American policing is characterized by a fragmented, localized structure with little overview and control, and much reliance on local agencies. Part I presents the authors’ interpretation of Herring as a case hinging upon the question “who made the mistake?” as …


Introduction To Symposium: The Future Of The Exclusionary Rule And The Aftereffects Of The Herring And Hudson Decisions, Barry Kamins Jan 2010

Introduction To Symposium: The Future Of The Exclusionary Rule And The Aftereffects Of The Herring And Hudson Decisions, Barry Kamins

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This article is an introduction the symposium, "The Future of the Exclusionary Rule and the Aftereffects of the Herring and Hudson Decisions," hosted by the Fordham Urban Law Journal. The symposium explored the effects of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Herring v. United States and Hudson v. Michigan—what the Supreme Court will do with the Rule in the future, as well as varying interpretations of what the Supreme Court should do. The federal exclusionary rule, which is approaching its 100th anniversary, was extended to the states almost fifty years ago by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision of Mapp …


Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys Jan 2010

Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys

Fordham Urban Law Journal

In this symposium contribution, I contend that the application of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in cases tried by juries raises troubling moral issues that are not present when a judge adjudicates a case on his or her own. Specifically, I argue that the exclusionary rule infringes upon jurors’ deliberative autonomy by depriving them of available evidence that rationally bears upon their verdict and by instrumentalizing them in service to the Court’s deterrence objectives. After considering ways in which those moral problems could be at least partially mitigated, I contend that the best approach might be to abandon the exclusionary …


The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps Jan 2010

The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps

Fordham Urban Law Journal

The justices of the Supreme Court have drawn new battle lines over the exclusionary rule. In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), a five-justice majority, over a strong dissent, went out of the way to renew familiar criticisms of the rule. Just this January, in Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009), the justices again divided five to four. This time the dissenters raised the ante, by arguing that the Court's cost-benefit approach to applying the rule is misguided. For the first time since Justice Brennan left the Court, some of the justices appealed to broader justifications for …


The Exclusionary Rule Redux - Again, Lloyd L. Weinreb Jan 2010

The Exclusionary Rule Redux - Again, Lloyd L. Weinreb

Fordham Urban Law Journal

The exclusionary rule itself is not very complicated: if the police obtain evidence by means that violate a person’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, the evidence is not admissible against that person in a criminal trial. The basic provision, however, has been freighted with innumerable epicycles, and epicycles on epicycles ever since it was made part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The exclusionary rule survives in a kind of doctrinal purgatory, neither accepted fully into the constitutional canon nor cast into the outer darkness. It survives, but its reach is uncertain, its rational questioned, and its value doubted. Hudson v. Michigan …


Answering Justice Scalia's Question: Dual Sovereignty And The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel After Texas V. Cobb And Montejo V. Louisiana, Ryan M. Yanovich Jan 2009

Answering Justice Scalia's Question: Dual Sovereignty And The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel After Texas V. Cobb And Montejo V. Louisiana, Ryan M. Yanovich

Fordham Law Review

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Texas v. Cobb in 2001, eight courts of appeals have rached divergent conclusions as to the scope and extent of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he is being prosecuted by multiple sovereigns, including, most recently, the U.S. Court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 2008. Invariably, each circuit court purports to draw conclusive support for its holding from the plain language of Cobb. The conflict among the circuits reveals a tension between the courts; desire to balance fundamental individual and legitimate state interests, achieve uniformity and consistency in the …


Admissibility Of Evidence In Probation/Parole Revocation Proceedings And In Criminal Prosecutions: Applying A Single Standard, Steven Monteforte Jan 1982

Admissibility Of Evidence In Probation/Parole Revocation Proceedings And In Criminal Prosecutions: Applying A Single Standard, Steven Monteforte

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.


Possession And Presumptions: The Plight Of The Passenger Under The Fourth Amendment, Robert A. Gaynor Jan 1980

Possession And Presumptions: The Plight Of The Passenger Under The Fourth Amendment, Robert A. Gaynor

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.


Immigration Law- Exclusionary Rule- If The Exclusionary Rule Question Is Reached, The Civil Nature Of A Deportation Proceeding May Preclude Its Application, Diane M. Peress Jan 1979

Immigration Law- Exclusionary Rule- If The Exclusionary Rule Question Is Reached, The Civil Nature Of A Deportation Proceeding May Preclude Its Application, Diane M. Peress

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Case Note addresses questions concerning the exclusionary rule in deportation proceedings. Examining the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Cuevas- Ortega v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, this case note admits that though the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy it may still be required in deportation proceedings.


Reason And The Fourth Amendment―The Burger Court And The Exclusionary Rule , Norman M. Robertson Jan 1977

Reason And The Fourth Amendment―The Burger Court And The Exclusionary Rule , Norman M. Robertson

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Doctrine Of Collateral Estoppel In Parole Revocation, Patrick M. Reilly Jan 1976

The Doctrine Of Collateral Estoppel In Parole Revocation, Patrick M. Reilly

Fordham Urban Law Journal

In recent years courts have shown more recognition of the rights of parolees and probationers. Spurred by a Supreme Court decision that certain due process protections were applicable to parole revocation procedures, revocation hearings are now providing parolees and probationers some of the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at trial. Policy considerations have dictated, however, that the protections available at revocation hearings must fall far short of conferring upon the accused "the full panoply of rights due a defendant" at trial. As a result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on the difference between revocation hearings and criminal proceedings, lower …