Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Resolving The Original Sin Of Bolling V. Sharpe, Gregory Dolin
Resolving The Original Sin Of Bolling V. Sharpe, Gregory Dolin
All Faculty Scholarship
On May 17, 1954 the Supreme Court handed down two decisions that for the first time categorically held that racial segregation in public schools was per se unlawful – Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe. Ostensibly, both cases dealt with a same question; however, in Brown the entity accused of discrimination was a creature of the State of Kansas, while in Bolling the discrimination was practiced by the federal government. The problem that the Supreme Court faced was the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, by its own terms, guaranteed “equal protection of the laws” only vis-à-vis …
Recent Development: Motor Vehicle Admin. V. Deering: A Driver Whose License Is Suspended Under The "Implied Consent, Administrative Per Se Law" Is Not Entitled To Consult With An Attorney Before Deciding Whether To Take A Breath Test, Patrick Toohey
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held the implied consent, administrative per se law (“administrative per se law”) does not require that a suspected drunk driver be given the opportunity to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take a breath test. Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Deering, 438 Md. 611, 637, 92 A.3d 495, 511 (2014). The court found that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not establish a pre-test right to counsel for a suspected drunk driver in an administrative proceeding.