Law Commons^™

Fourth Amendment Infringement Is Afoot: Revitalizing Particularized Reasonable Suspicion For Terry Stops Based On Vague Or Discrepant Suspect Descriptions, Caroline E. Lewis

William & Mary Law Review

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court granted law enforcement broad power to perform a limited stop and search of someone when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. The resulting “Terry stop” created a way for police officers to investigate a suspicious person without requiring full probable cause for an arrest. The officer need only have “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” based on the circumstances and the officer’s policing “experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” Reasonable suspicion is—by design—a broad standard, deferential to police officers’ judgment. Law enforcement officers …

Taking Shelter Under The Fourth Amendment: The Constitutionality Of Policing Methods At State-Sponsored Natural Disaster Shelters, Kyle M. Wood

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pricing The Fourth Amendment, Miriam H. Baer

William & Mary Law Review

Critics have long decried the Fourth Amendment’s lack of an adequate remedy to secure its compliance. Neither the exclusionary rule nor the threat of civil liability deters police misconduct, leaving scholars to cast about for alternative measures. The emphasis on penalties, however, overlooks a different problem: detection. Because of policing’s fast-paced nature, even so-called “flagrant” Fourth Amendment violations trigger insufficient liability due to low probabilities of detection.

This Article addresses this problem by drawing on the Pigouvian tax literature. The Pigouvian tax—sometimes referred to as a “corrective tax”—is a pricing instrument imposed by regulators in an amount equal to the …

Regulating Drones Under The First And Fourth Amendments, Marc Jonathan Blitz, James Grimsley, Stephen E. Henderson, Joseph Thai

William & Mary Law Review

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the Federal Aviation Administration to integrate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, into the national airspace system by September 2015. Yet perhaps because of their chilling accuracy in targeted killings abroad, perhaps because of an increasing consciousness of diminishing privacy more generally, and perhaps simply because of a fear of the unknown, divergent UAV-restrictive legislation has been proposed in Congress and enacted in a number of states. Given UAV utility and cost-effectiveness over a vast range of tasks, however, widespread commercial use ultimately seems certain. Consequently, it is imperative to understand …

Obscured By Clouds: The Fourth Amendment And Searching Cloud Storage Accounts Through Locally Installed Software, Aaron J. Gold

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Innovation And The Warrant Requirement: Reconsidering The Rights-Police Efficiency Trade-Off, Tonja Jacobi, Jonah Kind

William & Mary Law Review

It is routinely assumed that there is a trade-off between police efficiency and the warrant requirement. But existing analysis ignores the interaction between law-enforcement investigative practices and criminal innovation. Narrowing the definition of a search or otherwise limiting the requirement for a warrant gives criminals greater incentive to innovate to avoid detection. With limited resources to develop countermeasures, law enforcement officers will often be just as effective at capturing criminals when facing higher Fourth Amendment hurdles. We provide a game-theoretic model that shows that when law-enforcement investigation and criminal innovation are considered in a dynamic context, the police efficiency rationale …

The Death Of Suspicion, Fabio Arcila Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

At the nation’s founding, search warrants and the concept of suspicion were well entrenched as a means of limiting governmental search power. This tradition largely explains why today’s Fourth Amendment law includes two foundational black letter rules: the presumptive warrant requirement and the presumptive suspicion requirement. Unfortunately, neither of these rules is correct. Certainly they have historical support, especially in the common law. But whether they reflect the totality of our historic experience is questionable, especially when civil search practices are considered. More importantly, modern developments—such as urban life and technological advancements, the rise of the regulatory state, and post-9/11 …

The Content/Envelope Distinction In Internet Law, Matthew J. Tokson

William & Mary Law Review

Whether a component of an Internet communication is classified as "content" or "envelope" information determines in large part the privacy protection it receives under constitutional and statutory law. Courts and Internet law scholars have yet to offer a means of determining the content/envelope status of unique aspects of Internet communications-from email subject lines to website URLs. As a result, data with the potential to expose every website, every Internet file downloaded, and every email sent by an Internet user may be unprotected under current law.

This Article develops a legal framework for distinguishing content from envelope information in unique areas …

Storming The Castle To Save The Children: The Ironic Costs Of A Child Welfare Exception To The Fourth Amendment, Doriane Lambelet Coleman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ad Hoc Adjudication: People V. Champion, Another Confusing Element In The Turmoil Following Minnesota V. Dickerson, Audra A. Dial

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Central Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, Tracey Maclin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Abridged Too Far: Anticipatory Search Warrants And The Fourth Amendment, Michael J. Flannery

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Airport Freight And Passenger Searches: Application Of Fourth Amendment Standards

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law - Search And Seizure - Probable Cause Standard And The Informant - Spinelli V. United States, 89 S. Ct. 584 (1969)., Ray C. Stoner

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure - Electronic Eavesdropping - Katz V. United States, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967)

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Extent Of The Exclusionary Rule, Jon W. Bruce

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.