Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Exclusionary Rule In Immigration Proceedings: Where It Was, Where It Is, Where It May Be Going, Irene Scharf
The Exclusionary Rule In Immigration Proceedings: Where It Was, Where It Is, Where It May Be Going, Irene Scharf
San Diego International Law Journal
The piece examines the treatment of the Fourth Amendment in immigration courts by surveying its jurisprudential history in those courts and then analyzes the judicial responses thereto. Disparities among circuit court rulings add to the confusion and unpredictability typical of Immigration Court decisions. Finally, the article discusses the difficulties raised by the divergent circuit court opinions and offers suggestions as to how we may resolve these difficulties in accordance with the Constitution's requirement of fair play.
Danger Or Resort To Underwear: The Safford Unified School District No. 1 V. Redding Standard For Strip Searching Public School Students., Joseph O. Oluwole
Danger Or Resort To Underwear: The Safford Unified School District No. 1 V. Redding Standard For Strip Searching Public School Students., Joseph O. Oluwole
St. Mary's Law Journal
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding (Redding III) represents a pivotal decision in school search and seizure jurisprudence, specifically regarding strip searches of students. Redding III establishes constraints specific to strip searches on the search and seizure authority of school officials. Redding III is intended to provide a uniform test for the judiciary and school officials when evaluating the reasonableness of strip searches of students. The Court explicitly interposed a “reliable knowledge” element requiring: (1) the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct; (2) the specificity of the information received; and (3) the reliability of its source. …
The Exclusionary Rule Redux - Again, Lloyd L. Weinreb
The Exclusionary Rule Redux - Again, Lloyd L. Weinreb
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The exclusionary rule itself is not very complicated: if the police obtain evidence by means that violate a person’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, the evidence is not admissible against that person in a criminal trial. The basic provision, however, has been freighted with innumerable epicycles, and epicycles on epicycles ever since it was made part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The exclusionary rule survives in a kind of doctrinal purgatory, neither accepted fully into the constitutional canon nor cast into the outer darkness. It survives, but its reach is uncertain, its rational questioned, and its value doubted. Hudson v. Michigan …