Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Discrimination (2)
- Active pursuit (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Entrapment (1)
-
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (1)
- Gender and law (1)
- Gender identity (1)
- Genitalia (1)
- Independent source (1)
- Inevitable discovery (1)
- Jacobson v. United States (1)
- LGBT (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Murray v. United States (1)
- Nardone v. United States (1)
- Nix v. Williams (1)
- Police (1)
- Police misconduct (1)
- Predisposition (1)
- Prisoners (1)
- Prisons (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Readiness requirement (1)
- Search and seizure (1)
- Searches (1)
- Seizures (1)
- Sexual orientation (1)
- Silverthrone Lumber Co. v. United States (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
"Ready? Induce. Sting!": Arguing For The Government's Burden Of Proving Readiness In Entrapment Cases, David D. Tawil
"Ready? Induce. Sting!": Arguing For The Government's Burden Of Proving Readiness In Entrapment Cases, David D. Tawil
Michigan Law Review
For over 100 years the United States judiciary has struggled with the sting and the entrapment defense, examining whether government agents deviously manufacture crimes or merely afford criminals the opportunity to commit them. The sentiments of Justice Holmes were rare for his time, but today they are reflected in a growing sympathy for sting victims. While courts are now more willing than ever to find entrapment, they still differ over the burden of proof that the government must satisfy to overthrow an entrapment defense. Specifically, courts disagree about whether the burden includes proof that the defendant had the ability and …
"Trapped" In Sing Sing: Transgendered Prisoners Caught In The Gender Binarism, Darren Rosenblum
"Trapped" In Sing Sing: Transgendered Prisoners Caught In The Gender Binarism, Darren Rosenblum
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
This Article first summarizes gender, transgendered identity, and legal issues facing transgendered people to contextualize the lives of transgendered prisoners. Parts II and III explore respectively the placement and treatment issues that complicate the incarceration of the transgendered. Corrections authorities, through indifference or incompetence, foster a shockingly inhumane daily existence for transgendered prisoners. In Part V, I examine the plight of transgendered prisoners through the metaphor of the miners' canary. Transgendered prisoners signal the grave dangers facing all of us in a wide array of social structures, elucidating the apparently intractable problems of gender. This Article simultaneously explores a human …
The Adversity Of Race And Place: Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In Illinois V. Wardlow, 528 S. Ct. 673 (2000), Adam B. Wolf
The Adversity Of Race And Place: Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In Illinois V. Wardlow, 528 S. Ct. 673 (2000), Adam B. Wolf
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This Case Note lays out Wardlow's pertinent facts, describes the decisions of the Court and lower courts, and then analyzes the ramifications of the Court's holding. In particular, this Case Note argues that the Court's ruling recognizes substantially less Fourth Amendment protections for people of color and indigent citizens than for wealthy Caucasians. This perpetuates a cycle of humiliating experiences, as well as fear and mistrust of the police by many poor people of color.