Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 41
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Rapid Rise Of Delayed Notice Searches, And The Fourth Amendment "Rule Requiring Notice", Jonathan Witmer-Rich
The Rapid Rise Of Delayed Notice Searches, And The Fourth Amendment "Rule Requiring Notice", Jonathan Witmer-Rich
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This article documents the rapid rise of covert searching, through delayed notice search warrants, and argues that covert searching in its current form presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment's "rule requiring notice."
Congress authorized these "sneak and peek" warrants in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, and soon after added a reporting requirement to monitor this invasive search technique. Since 2001, the use of delayed notice search warrants has risen dramatically, from around 25 in 2002 to 5601 in 2012, suggesting that "sneak and peek" searches are becoming alarmingly common. In fact, it is not at all clear whether true "sneak …
Stunning Trends In Shocking Crimes: A Comprehensive Analysis Of Taser Weapons, Shaun H. Kedir
Stunning Trends In Shocking Crimes: A Comprehensive Analysis Of Taser Weapons, Shaun H. Kedir
Journal of Law and Health
In 2001, Westminster, Colorado police officers were dispatched to the home of a suicidal thirteen year-old girl who had barricaded herself in a bathroom. The young girl was mutilating her wrist with two butcher knives. When police officers forced their way into the bathroom, the emotionally disturbed girl charged at them with the two butcher knives while screaming, "Kill me! Kill me!." One of the officers deployed a Taser M26, a hand held conductive energy weapon, which fires two barbed darts up to a distance of thirty-five feet that then deliver an electric shock of 50,000 volts. The officer's Taser …
Crimes And Errors Impossible To Commit: Defining Away The Fourth Amendment - Wyoming V. Houghton, Rachel Gader-Shafran
Crimes And Errors Impossible To Commit: Defining Away The Fourth Amendment - Wyoming V. Houghton, Rachel Gader-Shafran
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note contends that the Court's decision to adopt the Houghton approach to the automobile warrant exception is problematic for three reasons. First, the Court has erroneously interpreted the historical evidence behind the creation of the Fourth Amendment. Second, the Court, by chipping away at stare decisis, is disrupting the foundations of American jurisprudence and the development of the law. Third, by creating a new lexicon, changing the meanings of the words, the Court is trying to define away the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. This Note will briefly summarize the facts of Houghton and review the historical purpose …
Constitutional Concerns In Drug Testing, Gordon J. Beggs
Constitutional Concerns In Drug Testing, Gordon J. Beggs
Journal of Law and Health
*this is not an article, rather a summary of recent case law and authority"
68/06/11 Police Won't Abuse Frisk Power Upheld By High Court, Says Blackwell, Cleveland Press
68/06/11 Police Won't Abuse Frisk Power Upheld By High Court, Says Blackwell, Cleveland Press
Newspaper Coverage
Cleveland Police Chief Michael J. Blackwell says police won't abuse new stop-and-frisk authority granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Terry v. Ohio decision. Cleveland ACLU representative Bernard A. Berkman disagrees with the Court decision saying "I think to rummage a person for evidence and to convict him without probable cause is offensive to the Constitution."
68/06/10 Right To Frisk Gets Supreme Court Ok, Cleveland Press
68/06/10 Right To Frisk Gets Supreme Court Ok, Cleveland Press
Newspaper Coverage
Summarizes the Court's opinion in Terry v Ohio, including quotes from the majority opinion. Also include quotes from Detective Marty McFadden, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor John T. Corrigan as well as Bernard A. Berkman, Cleveland representative of the ACLU.
68/02/14 High Court Decision Awaited In Police "Stop And Frisk" Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer
68/02/14 High Court Decision Awaited In Police "Stop And Frisk" Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer
Newspaper Coverage
Recaps the events of the case and describes how "police, prosecutors, and others concerned with rising crime rates fear that the Supreme Court may ban or drastically curtail 'stop and frisk,' depriving police of an invaluable investigative tool." Also describes the NAACP brief in which expresses concern that "inhabitants of our inner cities, racial minorities and the underprivileged" will be targeted disproportionately by police.
68/02/01 Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, Erwin N. Griswold, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg, Mervyn Hamburg
68/02/01 Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, Erwin N. Griswold, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg, Mervyn Hamburg
United States Supreme Court
"In sum, we believe that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment to recognize a power in law enforcement officers to detain and question under circumstances amounting to less than probable cause for a formal arrest, and that, in exercising such power, the officer may legitimately protect himself by a frisk for dangerous weapons" -- from page 18.
67/12/12 Oral Arguments Before The Us Supreme Court, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne, Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall
67/12/12 Oral Arguments Before The Us Supreme Court, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne, Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall
United States Supreme Court
Tuesday, December 12, 1967 oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court.
67/12/12 Supreme Court Hears Stop-Frisk Case, Cleveland Press
67/12/12 Supreme Court Hears Stop-Frisk Case, Cleveland Press
Newspaper Coverage
Reports on Louis Stokes argument that upholding Terry's frisking by Detective Martin McFadden would signal the relaxing of the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure. Reuben Payne, assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, contended that the McFadden had the right to search Terry whom he suspected was planning a robbery and probably was armed.
67/12/11 High Court To Eye Frisk Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer
67/12/11 High Court To Eye Frisk Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer
Newspaper Coverage
Reports how the Court is hearing Terry v. Ohio along with 3 others cases with stop-and-frisk issues. The Court will explore:
How much right does a policeman have to stop and question a suspicious person he has no legal reason to arrest?
If a policeman frisks a person he does not have a reason to arrest and finds incriminating evidence, can that evidence be used against the person in court.
67/11/17 Brief Of Americans For Effective Law Enforcement, As Amicus Curiae, James R. Thompson
67/11/17 Brief Of Americans For Effective Law Enforcement, As Amicus Curiae, James R. Thompson
United States Supreme Court
"Despite the evidence which has been found of cases in which some police have abused field interrogation in some instances - evidence upon which the amicus relies so heavily - the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice unanimously recommends its adoption and use :
"The Commission believes that there is a definite need to authorize the police to stop suspects and possible witnesses of major crimes, to detain them for brief questioning if they will not voluntarily cooperate, and to search such suspects for dangerous weapons when such precaution is necessary."
This Amicus Curiae requests that the …
67/11/13 Brief Of National District Attorneys Assocation Amicus Curiae, In Support Of Respondent, Harry Wood, Harry E. Sondheim, Brenden T. Byrne, Charles Moylan Jr., Evelle T. Younger
67/11/13 Brief Of National District Attorneys Assocation Amicus Curiae, In Support Of Respondent, Harry Wood, Harry E. Sondheim, Brenden T. Byrne, Charles Moylan Jr., Evelle T. Younger
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/11/03 Brief Of Respondent, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
67/11/03 Brief Of Respondent, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/10/25 Brief Of Attorney General Of The State Of New York As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Maria L. Marcus, Brenda Soloff
67/10/25 Brief Of Attorney General Of The State Of New York As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Maria L. Marcus, Brenda Soloff
United States Supreme Court
New York Attorney General Amicus Curiae brief argues that police should be able to stop and question suspects whom they reasonably believe have or are planning to commit a felony.
67/10/18 Brief For Petitioner, Terry, Louis Stokes, Jack G. Day
67/10/18 Brief For Petitioner, Terry, Louis Stokes, Jack G. Day
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/09/27 Brief Of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Of Ohio, And New York Civil Liberties Union, Amici Curiae, Thomas H. Barnard, Irwin M. Feldman, Lewis R. Katz, Bernard A. Berkman, Lewis A. Stern, Melvin L. Wulf, Alan H. Levine
67/09/27 Brief Of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Of Ohio, And New York Civil Liberties Union, Amici Curiae, Thomas H. Barnard, Irwin M. Feldman, Lewis R. Katz, Bernard A. Berkman, Lewis A. Stern, Melvin L. Wulf, Alan H. Levine
United States Supreme Court
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of New York and New York Civil Liberties Union's Amici Curiae Brief arguing against the "stop-and-frisk" practice as seen in Terry v. Ohio and Chilton v. Ohio, Peters v. New York, and Sibron v. New York.
67/08/31 Brief For The N.A.A.C.P Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., As Amicus Curiae, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit Iii, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, Anthony G. Amsterdam, William E. Mcdaniels Jr.
67/08/31 Brief For The N.A.A.C.P Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., As Amicus Curiae, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit Iii, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, Anthony G. Amsterdam, William E. Mcdaniels Jr.
United States Supreme Court
"The Court should hold that neither stops nor frisks may be made without probable cause. In each of these cases, the judgment of conviction should be reversed" -- conclusion, p. 69.
67/05/17 Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
67/05/17 Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan
United States Supreme Court
No abstract provided.
67/03/17 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Ohio, Louis Stokes
67/03/17 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Ohio, Louis Stokes
United States Supreme Court
Argues that the introduction of evidence (their guns) against Terry and Chilton violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that "bare suspicion alone" does not meet the requirements for "probable cause" set forth in the Forth and Fourteenth Amendments.
67/01/11 Docket And Journal Entries, Court Of Appeals, Emil J. Masgay
67/01/11 Docket And Journal Entries, Court Of Appeals, Emil J. Masgay
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
Docket and journal entries for Ohio v. Terry and Ohio v. Chilton, prepared by Emil J. Masgay, Clerk of Courts at the Eighth Judicial District Court of Appeals.
67/01/09 Precipe, Louis Stokes
67/01/09 Precipe, Louis Stokes
United States Supreme Court
Precipe asking the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County to prepare and file with the United States Supreme Court a certified transcript of the docket, and journal entries together with the original papers and including the Court's opinion in State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton.
66/10/20 Police Can Search, High Court Rules, Cleveland Press
66/10/20 Police Can Search, High Court Rules, Cleveland Press
Newspaper Coverage
The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden's search of John W. Terry and Richard D. Chilton (represented by Louis Stokes) did not violate their constitutional rights because McFadden felt they were acting "in a suspicious manner."
66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio
66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio
Ohio Supreme Court
Mandate to Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, to proceed without delay to carry out its judgment in Ohio v Terry citing no substantial constitution question involved.
66/09/21 Motion To Dismiss Appeal Filed As Of Right And Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction, John T. Corrigan, Reuben M. Payne
66/09/21 Motion To Dismiss Appeal Filed As Of Right And Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction, John T. Corrigan, Reuben M. Payne
Ohio Supreme Court
"The trial court properly found that there is a distinction between a frisk and a search, and that in the circumstances of this case the frisk preceded the arrest, and further, that the arrest and search in connection therewith were legal. The opinion of the Court of Appeals and the authorities cited therein support that conclusion. The defendant has not shown any valid reason why these findings should be disturbed. The motion for leave to appeal should therefore be overruled." From the Conclusion, page 14.
66/06/14 Notice Of Appeal For Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Louis Stokes
66/06/14 Notice Of Appeal For Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Louis Stokes
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
Louis Stokes gives notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court from judgment rendered by 8th District Court of Appeals on May 25, 1966. Appeal is on questions of law and on condition that motion for leave to appeal be allowed by Supreme Court of Ohio; constitutional question is also involved.
66/05/25 Journal Entry From Appeals Court Affirming The Common Pleas Court Judgment In Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Samuel H. Silbert
66/05/25 Journal Entry From Appeals Court Affirming The Common Pleas Court Judgment In Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Samuel H. Silbert
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
The Court of Appeals, Eight District, Cuyahoga County finds no error prejudicial to the appellant, thus affirming the Common Pleas Court judgement. Signed by Chief Justice Joseph H. Silbert, with Justices Joseph A. Artl and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan concurring.
66/02/11 Opinion, Eighth Judicial District Of Ohio, Court Of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, Samuel H. Silbert
66/02/11 Opinion, Eighth Judicial District Of Ohio, Court Of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, Samuel H. Silbert
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
Judges Samuel H. Silbert, Joseph A. Artl, and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan unanimously upheld Judge Bernard Friedman's decision in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The Appeals Court held that Detective Martin J. McFadden had validly found the gun carried by John Terry and had, at the moment of the arrest, adequate probable cause to arrest Terry.
66/02/10 Police Upheld In Acts Of Personal Search, Cleveland Press
66/02/10 Police Upheld In Acts Of Personal Search, Cleveland Press
Newspaper Coverage
Justices Joseph H. Silbert, Joseph A. Artl and J. J. P. Corrigan of the 8th District Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Bernard Friedman in his ruling that a policeman has a right to question a suspicious person and search him in order to protect himself from a possible assault with a deadly weapon.
65/03/11 Brief Of Defendant-Appellant, Louis Stokes
65/03/11 Brief Of Defendant-Appellant, Louis Stokes
Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
"ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1. The Court erred in not sustaining defendant's Motion to Suppress upon making its finding that the arrest herein was illegal. (R. 96, 100)
2. The Court erred in refusing to apply constitutional guarantees prohibiting illegal searches and seizures and substituting therefor a doctrine of stop and frisk."