Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin
Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin
UF Law Faculty Publications
This is an essay on Professor Sarah A. Seo’s new book, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press 2019). I focus on Professor Seo’s analysis of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). Carroll is important not only because it was the Court’s first car case. Understanding Carroll (and Brinegar, which solidified and expanded Carroll’s holding) is essential because, nearly one hundred years later, its logic continues to direct how the modern Court resolves Fourth Amendment claims of motorists. Put simply, a majority of today’s …
Byrd V United States: Unauthorized Drivers Of Rental Cars Have Fourth Amendment Rights? Not As Evident As It Seems, Tracey Maclin
Byrd V United States: Unauthorized Drivers Of Rental Cars Have Fourth Amendment Rights? Not As Evident As It Seems, Tracey Maclin
UF Law Faculty Publications
No discerning student of the Supreme Court would contend that Justice Anthony Kennedy broadly interpreted the Fourth Amendment during his thirty years on the Court. His majority opinions in Maryland v. King, Drayton v. United States and his willingness to join the three key sections of Justice Scalia’s opinion in Hudson v. Maryland, which held that suppression is never a remedy for knock-and-announce violations, are just a few examples of Justice Kennedy’s narrow view of the Fourth Amendment. In light of his previous votes in search and seizure cases, surprisingly Justice Kennedy, in what would be his final Fourth Amendment …
The Good And Bad News About Consent Searches In The Supreme Court, Tracey Maclin
The Good And Bad News About Consent Searches In The Supreme Court, Tracey Maclin
UF Law Faculty Publications
This article is about the Supreme Court's consent search doctrine. Part I describes how the law of consent searches developed between the 1920s and 1973, when Schneckloth v. Bustamonte was decided, which is the Court's seminal consent search case. Part II of the article is a discussion of Bustamonte. In particular, this part highlights the spoken and unspoken premises that influenced the result in Bustamonte and outlines Bustamonte's continuing relevance for consent search cases today. Part III examines United States v. Drayton, a ruling authored by Justice Kennedy that explains why a cryptic passage in that ruling provides important clues …