Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

To Download Or Not To Download: Is Mere Membership Enough To Justify A Search Of A Home Computer For Child Pornography Under United States V. Gourde?, Erin Frazor Oct 2010

To Download Or Not To Download: Is Mere Membership Enough To Justify A Search Of A Home Computer For Child Pornography Under United States V. Gourde?, Erin Frazor

Golden Gate University Law Review

In the nine to two decision by the en banc Ninth Circuit panel in United States v. Gourde, the court ruled that probable cause existed to search the defendant's home computer based in part on his two-month subscription to a website that offered child pornography. The majority opinion sought to conform to Supreme Court precedent in its probable cause analysis, while the dissenting opinions expressed great concern about the door being opened to this type of governmental invasion of privacy. Gourde has sparked reactions by commentators regarding the implications of the decision, and has influenced the analysis of subsequent child …


United States V. Howard: Refocusing Probable Cause For Probationers And Parolees, Sean A. Kersten Oct 2010

United States V. Howard: Refocusing Probable Cause For Probationers And Parolees, Sean A. Kersten

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit rigidly followed circuit precedent to create and apply an incorrect standard to determine whether probable cause existed to believe that Howard resided at an unreported address. The court should have determined the reasonableness of the search by balancing Howard's reduced expectation of privacy as a probationer with legitimate governmental interests. Furthermore, the court's analysis served to protect the property at the unreported address rather than Howard's Fourth Amendment privacy rights. This decision is contrary to the principle articulated in Katz v. United States, which states the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect people, …


Survey: Women And California Law, Elaine Booras Sep 2010

Survey: Women And California Law, Elaine Booras

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb Jul 2010

Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb

Law and Contemporary Problems

Colb surfaces the "statistical versus concrete harms" disparity in judicial (and more broadly, human) reactions to probability-based behavior. In particular, it identifies the disparity in case law that either explicitly relies on the distinction as a normatively proper ground for legal decisions or that operates in a manner best explained by resort to this distinction. Though the paper is primarily descriptive, it suggests, tentatively, that lawmakers, judges, and juries should exercise greater care and deliberation in applying what may seem like a "natural" approach to distinguishing between permissible and impermissible harm. It is thus a plea for "conscious" consideration of …


What Is Probable Cause, And Why Should We Care?: The Costs, Benefits, And Meaning Of Individualized Suspicion, Andrew E. Taslitz Jul 2010

What Is Probable Cause, And Why Should We Care?: The Costs, Benefits, And Meaning Of Individualized Suspicion, Andrew E. Taslitz

Law and Contemporary Problems

Taslitz defines probable cause as having four components: one quantitative, one qualitative, one temporal, and one moral. He focuses on the last of these components. "Individualized suspicion," the US Supreme Court has suggested, is perhaps the most important of the four components of probable cause. That is a position with which he heartily agree. The other three components each play only a supporting role. But individualized suspicion is the beating heart that gives probable cause its vitality.


Government Dragnets, Christopher Slobogin Jul 2010

Government Dragnets, Christopher Slobogin

Law and Contemporary Problems

Slobogin describes the nature and effects of dragnet actions. They do so primarily through the prism of Supreme Court and lower court cases, but these sections also look at law-enforcement efforts that have yet to lead to litigation and imagine future dragnet efforts as well, with a special emphasis on the role technology can play in motivating dragnets and carrying them out. He then summarizes the Supreme Court's approach to group searches and the most significant alternative proposals for dealing with them.


How The Post-Framing Adoption Of The Bare-Probable-Cause Standard Drastically Expanded Government Arrest And Search Power, Thomas Y. Davies Jul 2010

How The Post-Framing Adoption Of The Bare-Probable-Cause Standard Drastically Expanded Government Arrest And Search Power, Thomas Y. Davies

Law and Contemporary Problems

Davies exposes a story that has been almost entirely overlooked: that the now-accepted doctrine that probable cause alone can justify a criminal arrest or search did not emerge until well after the framing of the Bill of Rights in 1789 and constituted a significant departure from the criminal-procedure standards that the Framers of the Bill thought they had preserved.


Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb Jul 2010

Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Searching For Terrorists: Why Public Safety Is Not A Special Need, Ric Simmons Feb 2010

Searching For Terrorists: Why Public Safety Is Not A Special Need, Ric Simmons

Duke Law Journal

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, local police across the country instituted blanket searches without individualized suspicion at various venues-including political protests, sporting events, subway platforms, and public ferries-all in an attempt to prevent further terrorist attacks. When evaluating these searches, courts rely upon the special needs doctrine, which allows the government to conduct a suspicionless search as long as the search serves a special need distinct from the goals of law enforcement. Over the past eight years, courts have struggled to determine whether and how the special needs doctrine applies to these searches, and …