Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Law
Newdow V. Rio Linda Union School Disctrict: Religious Coercion In Public Schools Unconstitutional Despite Voluntary Nature Of Partially Patriotic Activity, Daniel D. Blom
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District and explains why California Education Code Section 52720 and the School District’s policy of reciting the Pledge violate the Establishment Clause. Part I discusses the background facts and procedural history of the case and the three tests that were developed by the United States Supreme Court to analyze Establishment Clause challenges. Part II examines the Ninth Circuit’s application of the three Establishment Clause tests to the facts of this case. Finally, Part III explains why the Coercion Test is the determinative test in the context of government action in public …
United States V. Pineda-Moreno, Tracking Down Individuals' Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy In The Information Age, Caitlin Emmett
United States V. Pineda-Moreno, Tracking Down Individuals' Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy In The Information Age, Caitlin Emmett
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Pineda-Moreno, the Ninth Circuit held that prolonged police monitoring of a defendant’s precise location through the use of GPS transmitters did not constitute a search. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Knotts. Knotts held that “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” Prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pineda-Moreno, most federal appellate courts interpreted Knotts to hold that location tracking outside the home is analogous to physical surveillance and …
The Extension Of Privacy Rights To Workplace Text Messages Under Quon V. Arch Wireless, Heather Wolnick
The Extension Of Privacy Rights To Workplace Text Messages Under Quon V. Arch Wireless, Heather Wolnick
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a public employer violated the Fourth Amendment by searching the contents of text messages sent and received on a public employee's work-issued pager. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit found that the public employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the text messages, despite a formal Internet and computer policy stating otherwise. Relying on the two-part O'Connor test for public-employer searches, the court found that the search was more intrusive than necessary to determine …
To Download Or Not To Download: Is Mere Membership Enough To Justify A Search Of A Home Computer For Child Pornography Under United States V. Gourde?, Erin Frazor
Golden Gate University Law Review
In the nine to two decision by the en banc Ninth Circuit panel in United States v. Gourde, the court ruled that probable cause existed to search the defendant's home computer based in part on his two-month subscription to a website that offered child pornography. The majority opinion sought to conform to Supreme Court precedent in its probable cause analysis, while the dissenting opinions expressed great concern about the door being opened to this type of governmental invasion of privacy. Gourde has sparked reactions by commentators regarding the implications of the decision, and has influenced the analysis of subsequent child …
Uncovering Fraud Against The Government By Way Of Freedom Of Information Act Requests: United States V. Catholic Healthcare West, Katherine Watts
Uncovering Fraud Against The Government By Way Of Freedom Of Information Act Requests: United States V. Catholic Healthcare West, Katherine Watts
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. Catholic Healthcare West, the Ninth Circuit held that when information leading to a False Claims Act ("FCA") suit is obtained from a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, that suit is not necessarily barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The FCA contains a jurisdictional bar prohibiting suits based on publicly disclosed information from certain enumerated sources. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the Third Circuit and found that information obtained from an FOIA request does not necessarily bar a FCA claim. The court found that the inquiry should not be whether the FOIA response qualifies as …
Nonconsensual Waiver Of A Jury Trial: Closing The Door, But Not Completely: United States V. United States District Court, Dije Ndreu
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. United States District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that the circumstances of a child sexual abuse case did not warrant an exception to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires the government's consent for a defendant to waive a jury trial. The court determined that the district court's ruling, which allowed the defendant to waive a jury trial without the government's consent, was clearly erroneous as a matter of law, and granted the government's petition for a writ of mandamus to require the district court to hold a jury trial.
An Employer's Use Of Federal Safety Standards To Exclude Individuals With Disabilities: Bates V. United Parcel Service, Inc., Ian Hansen
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff challenging a categorical safety-based "qualification standard" under the Americans with Disabilities Act does not have the burden of establishing that she could perform the essential function of generally performing the job "safely." The plaintiff is instead merely required to show that she is "qualified" in the sense that she has satisfied all prerequisites for the position, including any safety-related prerequisites not connected with the challenged criterion. The burden will then shift to the defendant to establish that the challenged …
United States V. Thomas: Ninth Circuit Misunder-"Standing": Why Permission To Drive Should Not Be Necessary To Create An Expectation Of Privacy In A Rental Car, Matthew M. Shafae
United States V. Thomas: Ninth Circuit Misunder-"Standing": Why Permission To Drive Should Not Be Necessary To Create An Expectation Of Privacy In A Rental Car, Matthew M. Shafae
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note argues that the proper inquiry for determining whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a rental vehicle when that defendant is the unauthorized driver of a rental car is the totality-of-the-circumstances test, not the permission test adopted by the Ninth Circuit. A test requiring permission is unsupported by Supreme Court precedent and will yield inconsistent results when applied. Part I provides a brief historical background for challenges to Fourth Amendment searches. Part II sets forth the background and analysis of the opinion in focus, United States v. Thomas. Part III evaluates the court's analysis in …
An Unreasonable Online Search: How A Sheriffs Webcams Strengthened Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights Of Pretrial Detainees, Ian Wood
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note will discuss how courts approach pretrial detainees' claims of punishment, exploring both Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. It will go on to discuss Demery's implications for Fourth Amendment privacy rights of pretrial detainees. Part I explores the protections pretrial detainees are afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause." Part l.A discusses the general differences between pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. Part I.B considers two Supreme Court cases - Bell v. Wolfish and Block v. Rutherford - that address the standards used in evaluating punishment claims in a pretrial detention context …
Eighth Amendment - Andrade V. Attorney General, Renee Ross
Eighth Amendment - Andrade V. Attorney General, Renee Ross
Golden Gate University Law Review
A large majority of states have enacted recidivist statutes requiring increased punishment for repeat offenders. California's controversial recidivist statute, the Three Strikes and You're Out Law (the Three Strikes Law), was approved by ballot initiative and enacted by the state legislature in 1994. Defendants have challenged the constitutionality of sentences under habitual offender statutes for at least twenty years. In Harmelin v. Helm, the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a first time drug offender convicted of possession of 650 grams of cocaine. Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Harmelin set …
First Amendment - Alameda Books V. City Of Los Angeles, Katia Lazzara
First Amendment - Alameda Books V. City Of Los Angeles, Katia Lazzara
Golden Gate University Law Review
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. Courts categorize government restrictions of speech as either content based or content neutral. Content-based regulations restrict speech because of the specific idea or message conveyed. Because content-based regulations greatly restrain a person's right to free speech, they must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest. Content-neutral regulations, on the other hand, regulate conduct that indirectly impacts speech. In order to pass muster, content-neutral regulations must advance a significant state interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and not substantially burden more speech …
Expanding The Jurisdictional Reach For Intentional Torts: Implications For Cyber Contacts, Christopher Allen Kroblin
Expanding The Jurisdictional Reach For Intentional Torts: Implications For Cyber Contacts, Christopher Allen Kroblin
Golden Gate University Law Review
Originally, the foundation of jurisdictional jurisprudence in the United States rested on the premise that no state could exercise jurisdiction over a person outside its territorial borders. With the advent of modern industrial society, solely territorial based notions of sovereignty and jurisdiction became strained and unworkable. The concept that a state has control over everything within its borders and nothing beyond began to erode. As a result, during the twentieth century, the courts began to shift their focus from a territorial concept of jurisdiction to a notice-based concept. State courts exercised jurisdictional powers beyond their geographical territory so long as …
Lajoie V. Thompson: Does The Ninth Circuit Grant Young Victims Less Protection Under Rape Shield Statutes?, Crystal Dykman
Lajoie V. Thompson: Does The Ninth Circuit Grant Young Victims Less Protection Under Rape Shield Statutes?, Crystal Dykman
Golden Gate University Law Review
In LaJoie v. Thompson, the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court's preclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual abuse by others as a sanction for LaJoie's failure to comply with the 15-day notice requirement in Oregon's rape shield law violated LaJoie's Sixth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit further held that the preclusion of this evidence regarding the prior sexual abuse of the victim warranted habeas relief. In Part II, this Note discusses LaJoie's facts and procedural history. Part III outlines the history of the Habeas Corpus statutes and discusses the Oregon and Federal rape shield statutes, with an …
Exercising The Right To Self-Representation In United States V. Farhad: Issues In Waiving A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Kenneth R. Sogabe
Exercising The Right To Self-Representation In United States V. Farhad: Issues In Waiving A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Kenneth R. Sogabe
Golden Gate University Law Review
Though all U.S. courts recognize the right to self-representation as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta, constitutional and procedural issues affect its effective implementation. This note explores the Sixth Amendment's right to waive counsel and its effect on a criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment right to receive a fair trial. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Farhad is critiqued on two issues: first, the failure to address standby counsel in sharing duties of representation with the defendant; and second, the court's failure to address Farhad's lack of access to the means of developing his case. Lastly, this note proposes …
United States V. Covarrubias: Does The Ninth Circuit Add To The Ambiguity Of The Inextricably Intertwined Exception?, Holly Larsen
United States V. Covarrubias: Does The Ninth Circuit Add To The Ambiguity Of The Inextricably Intertwined Exception?, Holly Larsen
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note discusses Covarrubias' facts and procedural history. Part III outlines the history of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, with an emphasis on the inextricably intertwined exception. Part IV analyzes the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Covarrubias. Part V critiques this reasoning in light of the strong presumption against the finding of the application of the inextricably intertwined exception. Finally, Part VI concludes that the Ninth Circuit properly suppressed the defendant's incriminating statements obtained by I.N.S. Agent Gonzalez, but would have set forth a stronger position had the Ninth Circuit evaluated in addition, or, in the alternative, under the circumvention …
Constitutional Law - Colacurcio V. City Of Kent, Zachary J. Dalton
Constitutional Law - Colacurcio V. City Of Kent, Zachary J. Dalton
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Colacurcio v. City of Kent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the City of Kent's Ordinance 3221, which required nude dancers to perform at least ten feet from patrons, did not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court found that, as a matter of law, the Kent ordinance was content-neutral and the ten-foot distance requirement was narrowly tailored and left open ample alternative avenues for communication of protected expression.
After United States V. Vaneaton, Does Payton V. New York Prevent Police From Making Warrantless Routine Arrests Inside The Home?, Bryan Murray
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. Vaneaton the Ninth Circuit held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by making a warrantless arrest of a suspect who answered his door in response to their knock. The majority distinguished the case from the United States Supreme Court's holding in Payton v. New York, which ordinarily requires police to obtain a warrant before arresting a suspect inside his or her dwelling. Instead, the court found that the police did not need a warrant to arrest the suspect, even though he stood within the identifiable threshold of the doorway, …
The Constitutionality Of Mandatory, Presentence Urine Testing Of Convicted Defendants, Joshua W. Rose
The Constitutionality Of Mandatory, Presentence Urine Testing Of Convicted Defendants, Joshua W. Rose
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Portillo v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, the Ninth Circuit held that mandatory presentence urine testing of a convicted defendant violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court concluded that, because the particular facts of the case and the lack of information about the defendant's past drug usage did not support the district court's order, urine testing was constitutionally impermissible.