Law Commons^™

Assessing The Constitutionality Of The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, John Dorsett Niles

Duke Law Journal

In 1996, Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC). A court of deportation, the ATRC provides the U.S. attorney general a forum to remove expeditiously any resident alien who the attorney general has probable cause to believe is a terrorist. In theory, resident aliens receive different-and arguably far weaker-procedural protections before the ATRC than they would receive before an administrative immigration panel. In theory, the limited nature of the ATRC protections might implicate resident aliens' Fifth Amendment rights. In practice, however, the ATRC has never been used. Perhaps to avoid an adverse constitutional ruling, the attorney general has never …

The Right Ones For The Job: Divining The Correct Standard Of Review For Curtilage Determinations In The Aftermath Of Ornelas V. United States, Jake Linford

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

The Iphone Meets The Fourth Amendment, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

Imagine that Dan Defendant is stopped by the police for driving through a stop sign. The officer thinks that Dan looks suspicious, but has no probable cause to believe he has done anything illegal, other than driving recklessly. Nevertheless, because running a stop sign is an arrestable offense and the officer is suspicious that Dan might be involved in more serious criminal activity, the officer arrests Dan for the traffic violation.

Under the search incident to arrest doctrine, officers are entitled to search the body of the arrestee to ensure that he does not have weapons or will not destroy …

Originalism & Early Civil Search Statutes: Searches & The Misunderstood History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila

Fabio Arcila Jr.

Originalist analyses of the Framers’ views about governmental search power have devoted insufficient attention to the civil search statutes they promulgated. What attention has been paid, primarily as part of what I term the “conventional account,” has it that the Framers were divided about how accessible search remedies should be. This article explains why this conventional account is mostly wrong, and explores the lessons to be learned from the statutory choices the Framers made with regard to search and seizure law.

In enacting civil search statutes, the Framers chose to depart from common law standards and instead largely followed the …

Driving Off The Face Of The Fourth Amendment: Weighing Caballes Under The Proposed "Vehicular Frisk" Standard, Christopher M. Pardo

ILSU Working Paper Series

This paper explores and explains the socioeconomic and racial effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Caballes decision. While society charges law enforcement with eliminating illegal drug activity, the Fourth Amendment rights of every American citizen must also be respected. In Caballes, the Supreme Court held that a dog-sniff does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, so probable cause is not needed to examine a citizen’s vehicle using a drug dog. While Caballes may be effective in helping police battle a burgeoning drug trade, as it allows police to walk a drug-detection dog around any lawfully stopped vehicle, it also creates …

Driving Off The Face Of The Fourth Amendment: Weighing Caballes Under The Proposed 'Vehicular Frisk' Standard, Christopher M. Pardo

Bocconi Legal Papers

This paper explores and explains the socioeconomic and racial effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Caballes decision. While society charges law enforcement with eliminating illegal drug activity, the Fourth Amendment rights of every American citizen must also be respected. In Caballes, the Supreme Court held that a dog-sniff does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, so probable cause is not needed to examine a citizen’s vehicle using a drug dog. While Caballes may be effective in helping police battle a burgeoning drug trade, as it allows police to walk a drug-detection dog around any lawfully stopped vehicle, it also creates …

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The "High-Crime Area" Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis [Pdf], Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Damien Bernache

American University Law Review

This article proposes a legal framework to analyze the "high crime area" concept in Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion challenges. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, reviewing courts are allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). However, the Supreme Court has never defined a "high crime area" and lower courts have not reached consensus on a definition. There is no agreement on what a "high-crime area" is, whether it has geographic boundaries, whether it changes over time, whether …

In The Trenches: Searches And The Misunderstood Common-Law History Of Suspicion And Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila

Scholarly Works

A detailed analysis of the common law during the Framers’ era, and of how it reflected the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions, shows that many judges believed they could issue search warrants without independently assessing the adequacy of probable cause, and that this view persisted even after the Fourth Amendment became effective. This conclusion challenges the leading originalist account of the Fourth Amendment, which Professor Thomas Davies published in the Michigan Law Review in 1999.

Learned treatises in particular, and to a lesser extent a few case decisions, had articulated a judicial duty to monitor probable cause. But it is a mistake …

The 'High Crime Area' Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis, Andrew Ferguson, Damien Bernache

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This article proposes a legal framework to analyze the "high crime area" concept in Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion challenges.Under existing Supreme Court precedent, reviewing courts are allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). However, the Supreme Court has never defined a "high crime area" and lower courts have not reached consensus on a definition. There is no agreement on what a "high-crime area" is, whether it has geographic boundaries, whether it changes over time, whether it …

Grand Jury Discretion And Constitutional Design, Roger Fairfax

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The grand jury possesses an unqualified power to decline to indict - despite probable cause that alleged criminal conduct has occurred. A grand jury might exercise this power, for example, to disagree with the wisdom of a criminal law or its application to a particular defendant. A grand jury might also use its discretionary power to send a message of disapproval regarding biased or unwise prosecutorial decisions or inefficient allocation of law enforcement resources in the community. This ability to exercise discretion on bases beyond the sufficiency of the evidence has been characterized pejoratively as grand jury nullification. The dominant …

Limiting A Constitutional Tort Without Probably Cause: First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest After Hartman, Colin P. Watson

Michigan Law Review

Federal law provides a cause of action for individuals who are the target of adverse state action taken in retaliation for their exercise of First Amendment rights. Because these constitutional torts are "easy to allege and hard to disprove," they raise difficult questions concerning the proper balance between allowing meaningful access to the courts and protecting government agents from frivolous and vexatious litigation. In its recent decision in Hartman v. Moore, the U.S. Supreme Court tipped the scales in favor of the state in one subset of First Amendment retaliation actions by holding that plaintiffs in actions for retaliatory …

Grand Jury Discretion And Constitutional Design, Roger A. Fairfax Jr.

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

The grand jury possesses an unqualified power to decline to indict - despite probable cause that alleged criminal conduct has occurred. A grand jury might exercise this power, for example, to disagree with the wisdom of a criminal law or its application to a particular defendant. A grand jury might also use its discretionary power to send a message of disapproval regarding biased or unwise prosecutorial decisions or inefficient allocation of law enforcement resources in the community. This ability to exercise discretion on bases beyond the sufficiency of the evidence has been characterized pejoratively as grand jury nullification. The dominant …