Law Commons^™

The Exclusionary Rule In Immigration Proceedings: Where It Was, Where It Is, Where It May Be Going, Irene Scharf

Irene Scharf

The case alerted me to the continuing issue concerning the treatment of alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights in immigration court, with this article the result of research conducted relating thereto. Beyond reviewing the relevant views of the federal courts of appeals; the administrative tribunal that handles appeals of immigration court cases, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and even local immigration courts; I consider whether the jurisprudence has remained static since the Supreme Court's watershed opinion on the issue about twenty-five years ago. I also offer suggestions as to how to effectively, fairly, and efficiently resolve the issues raised …

“A More Majestic Conception:” The Importance Of Judicial Integrity In Preserving The Exclusionary Rule, Robert M. Bloom, David H. Fentin

Robert Bloom

In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Warren Court held that the so-called exclusionary rule was applicable to the states. Subsequent Supreme Courts have shown their disenchantment with the rule by seeking to curb its applicability. Most recently, the Court has characterized the exclusionary rule as a “massive remedy” to be applied only as a “last resort.” The Courts’ analytical framework for the last thirty-five years for cutting back the exclusionary rule was a balancing test which weighed the costs of suppressing reliable evidence with the benefits of deterring future police violations. This balancing has been used most recently in two …

The Fourth Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History And Limits, L. Rush Atkinson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since 2001, federal prosecutors have indicted and convicted hundreds of defendants for terrorism, espionage, and other national security crimes.' And for every prosecution, there are dozens of investigations into foreign threats that never result in a trial. Between 2001 and 2010, for example, the federal government obtained 16,306 foreign intelligence warrants in the course of its security operations. Between 2004 and 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI") issued 119,192 National Security Letters for records deemed to be pertinent to national security investigations.

Despite these numbers, security investigations and prosecutions proceed on uncertain constitutional footing. The rights of terrorism suspects …

Who Should Be The ‘Decider’ On Keeping Our Secrets?, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

Life On Streets And Trails: Fourth Amendment Rights For The Homeless And The Homeward Bound, Wesley C. Jackson

Vanderbilt Law Review

People who read law review articles usually have the resources to temporarily abscond from society on a whim, perhaps to the nearest trailhead, and begin a trek through the woods. Such readers, if they choose a well-maintained trail frequented by long-distance hikers, may come across a simple, three-sided cabin known as a shelter. There they might find a grimy and unwashed bunch, talking amongst themselves using jargon such as "blazes" and "trail angels." Some may recognize them as "thru-hikers" and wonder how long the scrawny, bearded, and overloaded travelers have been at it. But some may ask if these apparent …

Mandatory Drug Testing Of College Athletes: Are Athletes Being Denied Their Constitutional Rights? , Allison Rose

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eyes In The Sky: Constitutional And Regulatory Approaches To Domestic Drone Deployment, Hillary B. Farber

Faculty Publications

This article begins with a current look at the deployment of drones domestically, both in terms of their use and the procedure for attaining approval for flight. Part II examines the capabilities of drones. Part III considers the Supreme Court's current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and its application to law enforcement's use of drones. Part IV reviews existing and proposed federal and state regulation of drones. Part V offers constitutional and legislative prescriptions for regulating drones.

Amicus Brief: State V. Glover (Maine Supreme Judicial Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

When law enforcement seeks to obtain a warrantless, pre-arrest DNA sample from an individual, that individual has the right to say “No.” If silence is to become a “badge of guilt,” then the right to silence—under the United States and Maine Constitutions—might become a thing of the past. Allowing jurors to infer consciousness of guilt from a pre-arrest DNA sample violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States and Maine Constitutions.

A Shattered Looking Glass: The Pitfalls And Potential Of The Mosaic Theory Of Fourth Amendment Privacy, David C. Gray, Danielle Keats Citron

Faculty Scholarship

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a landmark non-decision in United States v. Jones. In that case, officers used a GPS-enabled device to track a suspect’s public movements for four weeks, amassing a considerable amount of data in the process. Although ultimately resolved on narrow grounds, five Justices joined concurring opinions in Jones expressing sympathy for some version of the “mosaic theory” of Fourth Amendment privacy. This theory holds that we maintain reasonable expectations of privacy in certain quantities of information even if we do not have such expectations in the constituent parts. This Article examines and …

The Genealogy Detectives: A Constitutional Analysis Of 'Familial Searching', David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

“Familial searching” in law enforcement DNA databases has been pilloried as a step “towards eugenics and corruption of blood” and “lifelong genetic surveillance” that is “inconsistent with a basic pillar of American political thought.” Courts have yet to address the issue fully, but several commentators contend that the practice is unwise, unjust, or unconstitutional. This Article examines the more significant constitutional claims. It concludes that although kinship matching should not be implemented simply because it is technologically seductive, neither should it be removed from the realm of permissible law enforcement information gathering on constitutional grounds. In reaching this conclusion, the …

A Fourth Amendment Theory For Arrestee Dna And Other Biometric Databases, David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

Routine DNA sampling following a custodial arrest process is now the norm in many jurisdictions, but is it consistent with the Fourth Amendment? The few courts that have addressed the question have disagreed on the answer, but all of them seem to agree on two points: (1) the reasonableness of the practice turns on a direct form of balancing of individual and governmental interests; and (2) individuals who are convicted — and even those who are merely arrested — have a greatly diminished expectation of privacy in their identities. This Article disputes these propositions and offers an improved framework for …

Pass Parallel Privacy Standards Or Privacy Perishes, Anne T. Mckenna

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

“The Lady Of The House” Vs. A Man With A Gun: Applying Kyllo To Gun-Scanning Technology, Sean K. Driscoll

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plea Bargaining, Sentence Modifications, And The Real World, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

This article examines the 2011 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Freeman. At issue was whether defendants, such as Freeman, who enter a guilty plea pursuant to a binding plea agreement, are entitled to seek a modification of their sentence when the guideline range applicable to their offense has subsequently been lowered by the United States Sentencing Commission. By a five-to-four vote, the Court found that Freeman was eligible to seek a sentence reduction. However, as the article explains, the concurring and controlling opinion of Justice Sotomayor may ultimately prove to be problematic for criminal defendants generally and for …

Do You Know Where Your Dna Is? The Need For Dna Legislation In Ohio, Elizabeth Collins

Journal of Law and Health

This Note examines the several privacy and safety issues stemming from DNA theft. Part II discusses constitutional and common law regarding the abandonment of property, particularly under the Fourth Amendment, and explains how the Fourth Amendment does not protect individuals from DNA theft. Part III details the many consequences resulting from DNA theft. These risks, among countless others, include employment and insurance discrimination, family turmoil caused by paternity testing which is often inaccurate and conducted without consent, genetic stalking, security risks, and the unauthorized publication of personal medical information and ancestral information. Part IV examines DNA theft legislation adopted by …

American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards On Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

Search, Seizure, And Immunity: Second-Order Normative Authority And Rights, Stephen E. Henderson, Kelly Sorensen

Stephen E Henderson

A paradigmatic aspect of a paradigmatic kind of right is that the rights holder is the only one who can alienate it. When individuals waive rights, the normative source of that waiving is normally taken to be the individual herself. This moral feature—immunity—is usually in the background of discussions about rights. We bring it into the foreground here, with specific attention to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kentucky v. King (2011), concerning search and seizure rights. An entailment of the Court’s decision is that, at least in some cases, a right can be removed by the intentional actions of …

Real-Time And Historic Location Surveillance After United States V. Jones: An Administrable, Mildly Mosaic Approach, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

In United States v. Jones, the government took an extreme position: so far as the federal Constitution is concerned, law enforcement can surreptitiously electronically track the movements of any American over the course of an entire month without cause or restraint. According to the government, whether the surveillance be for good reason, invidious reason, or no reason, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. Fortunately, that position was unanimously rejected by the High Court. The Court did not, however, resolve what restriction or restraint the Fourth Amendment places upon location surveillance, reflecting a proper judicial restraint in this nuanced and difficult …

After United States V. Jones, After The Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the proposition that the Government can surreptitiously electronically track vehicle location for an entire month without Fourth Amendment restraint. While the Court's three opinions leave much uncertain, in one perspective they fit nicely within a long string of cases in which the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine. This Article develops that perspective and provides a cautiously optimistic view of where search and seizure protections may be headed.

More detail:

United States v. Jones, in which the …

What Alex Kozinski And The Investigation Of Earl Bradley Teach About Searching And Seizing Computers And The Dangers Of Inevitable Discovery, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

This paper tells two stories. One concerns the investigation of a Delaware physician named Earl B. Bradley that resulted in a conviction and sentence of fourteen consecutive life terms for the sexual abuse of children. The other concerns the computer problems, both judicial and extra-judicial, of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Though in a sense unrelated, they share lessons about the practicalities of computers and their search that are worth telling. As courts continue to struggle with how to cabin the searches of computers in order to minimize privacy intrusion …