Law Commons^™

The Bumpy Road To The Supreme Court: Does The Second Amendment Prevent States From Prohibiting Ownership Of Assault-Style Rifles And High-Capacity Magazines?, James B. Astrachan

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …

Recent Development: Williams V. State: A Confession Is Voluntary Unless The Defendant Unambiguously Invokes His Constitutional Right To Remain Silent Or The Confession Is Obtained Through Coercion Or Inducement, Pascale Cadelien

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know,” is an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. Williams v. State, 445 Md. 452, 455, 128 A.3d 30, 32 (2015). The court reasoned that the defendant’s addition of “I don’t know” to his initial assertion “I don’t want to say nothing” created uncertainty about whether he intended to invoke his right to remain silent. Id. at 477, A.3d at 44. This allowed a reasonable officer to interpret his statement as an “ambiguous request to remain silent.” Id. Furthermore, the officers’ implication …

Baltimore's Monumental Question: Can The Heightened Social Conscience Against The Confederacy Rewrite The Constitutional Right To Due Process?, Blake Alderman

University of Baltimore Journal of Land and Development

Monuments are preserved in order to remember, educate the public on, and acknowledge the monuments’ historical significance. Maryland’s monuments are designated by two authorities: the Board of the Maryland Historical Trust and smaller municipal commissions.1 The Board examines local monuments to be submitted to the national registry, whereas the smaller commissions are appointed and operate to preserve local Baltimore monuments.2 On June 30, 2015, Baltimore City Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake announced the creation of a Special Commission to review all Baltimore City Confederate historical monuments.3

The Commission’s appointment stems from a recently heightened national awareness of racism embedded in government culture. …

Never Alone: Why The Inevitable Influx Of Drones Necessitates A New Fourth Amendment Standard That Adequately Protects Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy, Paul Burgin

University of Baltimore Law Review

In June 2011, North Dakota cattle rancher Rodney Brossart became the first American to be arrested with the aid of a drone (Unmanned Aircraft System(s) or UAS) operated by law enforcement. Six cows found their way onto Brossart's property, and he refused to turn them over to law enforcement officials. Brossart and a few family members chased police officers off of his property at gunpoint, and police later returned with a warrant and SWAT team. A sixteen-hour standoff ensued until police called in the assistance of a UAS to pinpoint Brossart's exact location. Shortly thereafter, SWAT officers rushed in, tased, …

"And To Your Left You'll See...": Licensed Tour Guides, The First Amendment, And The Free Market, Kristin Tracy

University of Baltimore Law Review

If you are a beer-lover visiting Washington, D.C., you might want to check out “DC Brew Tours,” a “beer tour company in the Capital region that offers daily brewery tours to Washington’s best breweries, brewpubs, and bars.” As you would expect, the tour includes samples of beer from a number of local craft breweries, as well as information about how each beer is made. What you might not expect, however, is that, until very recently, DC Brew tour guides were legally obligated to pass a written exam about the history of D.C., a topic which has little to do with …

Comment: In The Street Tonight: An Equal Protection Analysis Of Baltimore City's Juvenile Curfew, Andrew Middleman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The sun is setting on a late-August evening in Baltimore. Children are playing in the gym at an elementary school in Berea, a small neighborhood in East Baltimore. Ulysses Cofield is watching the clock. Cofield keeps the Fort Worth Elementary School gym open late so the neighborhood kids have a place to blow off steam at the end of the day. At 8:30 p.m., he tells a pair of ten-year-olds they must leave so they can be home within the next thirty minutes. Cofield closes the gym for the evening, then scans the block for lingering children; he wants to …

Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State may appeal a trial court’s suppression of a victim’s dying declaration based on the legislative intent of Section 12-302(c)(4)(i) of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Procedure Article (“section 12-302(c)(4)(i)”). Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 497-98, 113 A.3d 608, 613-14 (2015). The court further held that a victim’s statement, made while on life support, was a dying declaration regardless of the fact that the victim died two years after making the statement. Id. at 506, 113 A.3d at 618. Finally, the court held that the Confrontation Clause of the …

It's "Exhausting": Reconciling A Prisoner's Right To Meaningful Remedies For Constitutional Remedies For Constitutional Violations With The Need For Agency Autonomy, Allen E. Honick

University of Baltimore Law Review

This Comment will address the inadequacy and injustice of the PLRA, specifically the “proper exhaustion” rule as expressed in Woodford v. Ngo. “Proper exhaustion” means that “a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Failure to adhere to even the slightest procedural requirement is sufficient to warrant procedural default, i.e., a dismissal regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. The PLRA seeks to achieve laudable ends, but the means by which it does so leave much to be desired.

Charm City Televised & Dehumanized: How Cctv Bail Reviews Violate Due Process, Edie Fortuna Cimino, Zina Makar, Natalie Novak

University of Baltimore Law Forum

On May 28, 2013, Torrey Johnson5 struggles to raise both his hands, handcuffed and seated shoulder-to-shoulder between two other defendants in the first row of the closed circuit television (“CCTV” or “videoconference”) bail review hearing room within the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (“Centeral Booking”). There are two more rows of defendants behind Mr. Johnson, all in yellow jumpsuits, being watched by correctional officers. Separated by a three-foot wall, Mr. Johnson’s public defender sits out of sight from the video camera’s field of view, about ten feet away from her client. The judge quickly reads through Mr. Johnson’s rights. …

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.

Symposium Foreword: Privacy Rights And Proactive Investigations: Emerging Constitutional Issues In Law Enforcement, Thiru Vignarajah

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comments: Keep It Clean: How Public Universities May Constitutionally Enforce Policies Limiting Student Speech At College Basketball Games, Jonathan Singer

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comments: Rights, Regulations, And Revolvers: Baltimore City's Complex Constitutional Challenge Following District Of Columbia V. Heller, Ian W. Henderson

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Four Terms Of The Kennedy Court: Projecting The Future Of Constitutional Doctrine, Kenneth M. Murchison

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remarkable Evolution: The Early Constitutional History Of Maryland, Charles A. Rees

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Essay: Referring To Foreign Law In Constitutional Interpretation: An Episode In The Culture Wars, Mark Tushnet

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comments: Immigrants, Health Care, And The Constitution: Medicaid Cuts In Maryland Suggest That Legal Immigrants Do Not Deserve The Equal Protection Of The Law, Tricia A. Bozek

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comments: A Poisoned Arrow In His Quiver: Why Forbidding An Entire Branch Of Government From Communicating With A Reporter Violates The First Amendment, Joseph S. Johnston

University of Baltimore Law Review

"[There exists] a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."

Revitalizing The Quiet Ninth Amendment: Determining Unenumerated Rights And Eliminating Substantive Due Process, Christopher J. Schmidt

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Notes: Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Maryland's "Son Of Sam" Statute Does Not Compel A Criminal Defendant To Turn Over Notoriety Of Crimes Contracts To The Attorney General. Curran V. Price, 334 Md. 149, 638 A.2d 93 (1994), Danielle B. Gibbs

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Suits Against State Officials For Damages For Violations Of Constitutional Rights: Comparing Maryland And Federal Law, Stephen J. Shapiro

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Notes: Constitutional Law — Ex Post Facto — Was Adding The Requirement Of Gubernatorial Approval Of Parole To The Patuxent Institution's Parole Procedures And Reinstating Original Sentences A Violation Of The Prohibition Against Ex Post Facto Laws? Gluckstern V. Sutton, 319 Md. 634, 574 A.2d 898, Cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 950 (1990), Carolyn W. Evans

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Notes: Sixth Amendment Right To A Speedy Trial — Delay Of Over Two Years Between Initial Arrest And Trial Not Prejudicial To Defendant's Right To A Fair And Speedy Trial. State V. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 572 A.2d 544, Cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 841 (1990), Joseph W. Rasnic

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Notes: Constitutional Law — First Amendment Freedom Of Speech — Statute Prohibiting "Loud And Unseemly" Noises Is A Content-Neutral Regulation Of Protected Speech. Eanes V. State, 318 Md. 436, 569 A.2d 604 (4-3 Decision), Cert. Denied, 110 S. Ct. 3218 (1990), Richard E. Guida

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Casenotes: Constitutional Law — The Supreme Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Mistretta V. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), Stanley Turk

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Casenotes: Constitutional Criminal Law — Sentencing — Mandatory Sentencing Statute Requiring Life Imprisonment Without Parole For Habitual Offenders Of Violent Crimes Satisfies The Eighth Amendment's Proportionality Principle When Applied To A Fourth Conviction Of Daytime Housebreaking. State V. Davis, 310 Md. 611, 530 A.2d 1223 (1987), Thomas Patrick Ott

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Exercise In The Free State: Maryland's Role In The Development Of First Amendment Jurisprudence, Kenneth Lasson

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Choosing The Appropriate State Statute Of Limitations For Section 1983 Claims After Wilson V. Garcia: A Theory Applied To Maryland Law, Stephen J. Shapiro

University of Baltimore Law Review

Forty-two U.S.C. section 1983 provides individuals with a federal cause of action for violations of their constitutional rights by persons acting under color of state law. The statute itself contains no limitations period for the filing of suits and, in keeping with settled federal practice, the lower federal courts have looked to state law to determine the proper limitations period. Because the lower courts adopted various inconsistent approaches to determining the appropriate state limitations period, the Supreme Court, in Wilson v. Garcia, held in 1985 that the federal courts should adopt the state limitations period for personal injury actions. In …

The Uncertain Scope Of The Plain View Doctrine, Howard E. Wallin

University of Baltimore Law Review

In recent years the Supreme Court has expanded the plain view exception to the warrant requirement by relaxing the prior valid intrusion and the inadvertency requirements. This article examines the resulting confusion in the state courts and identifies areas where judicial clarification is needed.