Law Commons^™

Fourth Amendment Limits On Extensive Quarantine Surveillance, Benjamin Wolters

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The devastation wreaked by the COVID-19 pandemic spurred innovations in technology and public policy. Many countries rushed to implement extensive quarantines, and some introduced disease surveillance, including location tracking to enforce quarantines. Though the United States has never implemented high-tech quarantine surveillance, such technology will certainly be available for the next disease outbreak.

Absent significant doctrinal change, the Fourth Amendment likely bars some, but not all, forms of quarantine surveillance. Quarantine surveillance probably constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search” that generally must be backed by probable cause. This probable cause requirement, and its subcomponent of individualized suspicion, likely applies differently to …

Who Protects Whom: Federal Law As A Floor, Not A Ceiling, To Protect Students From Inappropriate Use Of Force By School Resource Officers, Elsa Haag

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Over the past forty years, students in the U.S. have experienced increasingly strict school discipline policies and increased police presence in schools. Sent into schools with the aim of improving security in the wake of mass shootings, school resource officers (SROs) are sworn law enforcement regularly assigned to schools. But there is a paucity of evidence that SROs are effective in preventing mass shootings or provide other significant benefits. Instead, research shows that the presence of SROs results in students achieving less and experiencing more physical and emotional harm, with long-term implications and costs for individuals and communities. As trained …

Kansas V. Glover And The Issue Of Reasonable Suspicion, Zach Kumar

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

It is settled law that an officer may initiate a traffic stop when there is articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In Kansas v. Glover, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” The Court will determine whether it is reasonable for an officer to seize a vehicle if the registered owner has a revoked license and there is no information to suggest that the person driving is not the owner of the car. This Commentary argues that the Court should uphold …

An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Birchfield v. North Dakota involved the ability of legislatures to criminalize a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test after a law enforcement officer arrested the individual for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The driver’s argued this criminalized their constitutional right to refuse a warrantless search, while the governments’ argued they needed this power in order to effectively address drunk driving in their jurisdictions. The Court decided that refusing a breath test could be criminalized because requiring the test did not violate the driver’s constitutional rights, however the Court also ruled that because of the invasive …

Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explored warrantless breath tests during DUI stops and their validity under the Fourth Amendment. To determine their constitutionality, the Court adopted a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in preventing instances of drunk driving with the intrusion on an individual’s privacy. The Court ultimately concluded that warrantless breath tests are constitutional when conducted incident to a lawful DUI arrest. This commentary explores the Court’s reasoning and holding and will argue that the Court was correct in deciding that a warrant is not necessary for conducting a breath test incident to a …

Further Punishing The Wrongfully Accused: Manuel V. City Of Joliet, The Fourth Amendment, And Malicious Prosecution, James R. Holley

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Manuel v. City of Joliet is before the Supreme Court to determine whether detention before trial without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, or whether it is merely a violation of the Due Process Clause. Every circuit except the Seventh Circuit treats this type of detention as being a violation of the Fourth Amendment; only the Seventh Circuit considers this question under the Due Process Clause. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should look to its precedent, which clearly treats pretrial detention without probable cause as being a Fourth Amendment issue, and reverse the Seventh Circuit. …

Utah V. Strieff And The Future Of The Exceptions To The Exclusionary Rule, Zack Gong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In the recent case State v. Strieff, the Supreme Court of Utah held that police’s discovery of a lawful outstanding warrant during an unlawful investigatory stop cannot save the evidence obtained during that arrest from suppression under the attenuation doctrine. To reach that decision, the court reasoned that the inevitable discovery doctrine, instead of the attenuation doctrine, is appropriate for this situation. However, the court failed to address whether the inevitable discovery doctrine can ultimately save the evidence from suppression.

The theoretical foundation of how the Fourth Amendment guaranty gives rise to the exclusionary rule has never been steadfast; …