Law Commons^™

Tech And Authoritarianism: How The People’S Republic Of China Is Using Data To Control Hong Kong And Why The U.S. Is Vulnerable, Bryce Neary

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental & Innovation Law

The aim of this article is to analyze and compare current events in the People's Republic of China and the United States to discuss the moral dilemmas that arise when establishing the boundary between national security interests and individual privacy rights. As we continue to intertwine our lives with technology, it has become increasingly important to establish clear privacy rights. The question then becomes: at what point should individuals sacrifice their rights for what the government considers the "greater good" of the country?

Further, this article analyzes the development of U.S. privacy law and its relationship to national security, technology, …

Learning From The Past: Using Korematsu And Other Japanese Internment Cases To Provide Protections Against Immigration Detentions, Caleb Ward

Arkansas Law Review

One of the darkest periods in modern United States history is reoccurring with mixed public approval. During World War II, the United States government enacted executive orders creating a curfew, proscribing living areas, and forcing the exclusion and detention of all Japanese descendants from the West Coast. The United States justified these grievous freedom and equality violations through an increased need for national security “because we [were] at war with [Japan].” However, this perceived increased need for national security came from a fraudulent assessment showing any Japanese-American could be planning espionage or sabotage of the United States. After the war, …

School “Safety” Measures Jump Constitutional Guardrails, Maryam Ahranjani

Seattle University Law Review

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and efforts to achieve racial justice through systemic reform, this Article argues that widespread “security” measures in public schools, including embedded law enforcement officers, jump constitutional guardrails. These measures must be rethought in light of their negative impact on all children and in favor of more effective—and constitutionally compliant—alternatives to promote school safety. The Black Lives Matter, #DefundthePolice, #abolishthepolice, and #DefundSchoolPolice movements shine a timely and bright spotlight on how the prisonization of public schools leads to the mistreatment of children, particularly children with disabilities, boys, Black and brown children, and low-income children. …

Preservation Requests And The Fourth Amendment, Armin Tadayon

Seattle University Law Review

Every day, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, ridesharing companies, and numerous other service providers copy users’ account information upon receiving a preservation request from the government. These requests are authorized under a relatively obscure subsection of the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The SCA is the federal statute that governs the disclosure of communications stored by third party service providers. Section 2703(f) of this statute authorizes the use of “f” or “preservation” letters, which enable the government to request that a service provider “take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession” while investigators seek valid legal process. …

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. …

Judge Arnold's Four Rules: A Model For A Life In The Law, Sean Unger

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stranded In The Wastelands Of Unregulated Roadway Police Powers: Can Reasonable Officers Ever Rescue Us., Keith S. Hampton

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article describes the present state of roadway police power and explores the vulnerability of drivers and occupants to police abuse, specifically using pretextual stops. Today, state and federal courts have made many police power accommodations to the constitutional reasonableness requirement. Current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence justifies almost all conceivable police seizures of people in vehicles. If the police officer can point out any traffic law violation, he can arrest. And if he can arrest under those circumstances, then the already blurred line between detentions and arrest becomes inconsequential, constitutionally speaking. This Article proposes that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals …

Privacy Lost: Comparing The Attenuation Of Texas's Article 1, Section 9 And The Fourth Amendment., Kimberly S. Keller

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution mirrors its federal counterpart, requiring reasonableness in regard to intrusive governmental action. In examining these texts, both the federal and state provisions are comprised of two independent clauses: (1) the Reasonableness Clause, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; and (2) the warrant clause, which provides that warrants may issue only upon a showing of probable cause. Both the federal and Texas constitutions include explicit language regulating the government’s right to intrude on a person’s privacy. This …

The Presumption Of Innocence: Patching The Tattered Cloak After Maryland V. Craig., Ralph H. Kohlmann

St. Mary's Law Journal

Over one hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of the presumption of innocence in a criminal justice system which is based on due process. The Court declared the presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic, and elementary, and its enforcements lies at the foundation … of our criminal law.” The Court’s changing view of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the most recent contribution to the reduction in the practical value of the presumption of innocence. In Maryland v. Craig, the Court decided that while face-to-face confrontation forms the core of values furthered in …

Criminal Trespass And The Exclusionary Rule In Texas., Paul R. Stone, Henry De La Garza

St. Mary's Law Journal

In State v. Hobbs, the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals held a warrantless intrusion by police onto private property to obtain evidence constitutes criminal trespass under Section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code. The resulting evidence falls within the exclusionary rule and this article considers whether this protection, which goes beyond constitutional guarantees, is necessary or desirable. The first part of this paper reviews existing federal and state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. Next, the paper analyzes the history and purpose of criminal trespass and the exclusionary rule in Texas. Finally, the paper considers a question the court of appeals …

Heitman V. State: The Question Left Unanswered., Matthew W. Paul, Jeffrey L. Van Horn

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Heitman v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals appeared to break with the court’s prior holdings to announce it would no longer “automatically adopt and apply” to the search and seizure provisions of the Texas Constitution “the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.” The reaction to Heitman was immediate and striking. Heitman is obviously a significant decision that could impact Texas criminal jurisprudence for decades. Yet, the decision left many questions unanswered, including whether the search and seizure provision should be construed as placing greater restrictions on law enforcement than the Fourth Amendment of the United States …