Law Commons^™

The War On Drugs: Moral Panic And Excessive Sentences, Michael Vitiello

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article …

No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court legalized DNA collection of all felony arrestees upon arrest through its decision in Maryland v. King. Since then, the State of Ohio has broadened the use of arrestee DNA by subjecting it to familial DNA searches. Ohio’s practice of conducting familial DNA searches of arrestee DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that is extracted from a familial DNA search and it fails both the totality of the circumstances and the special needs tests. Further, these tests go against the intention of the …

Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones

Cleveland State Law Review

Courts are divided as to whether law enforcement can collect cell phone location information in real-time without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment prior to law enforcement’s collection of real-time cell phone location information. Courts that have required a warrant prior to the government’s collection of real-time cell phone location information have considered the length of surveillance. This should not be a factor. The growing prevalence and usage of cell phones and cell phone technology, the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, and United States …

Game Of Phones: The Fourth Amendment Implications Of Real-Time Cell Phone Tracking, Cal Cumpstone

Cleveland State Law Review

With the help of technological advancements, law enforcement can now hijack a targeted individual’s cell phone to ping and track the phone’s exact location in real time. Based upon previous rulings, this new tracking process has apparently fallen into a "grey area" of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. However, real-time cell phone tracking should be a search in terms of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, require a warrant. Real-time cell phone tracking infringes on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, violates the trespass doctrine as a trespass to chattels, and violates the Kyllo standard by using technology not in general public use …

Arbitrary Law Enforcement Is Unreasonable: Whren's Failure To Hold Police Accountable For Traffic Enforcement Policies, Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Whren v. United States is surely a leading contender for the most controversial and heavily criticized Supreme Court case that was decided in a short, unanimous opinion. The slip opinion is only thirteen pages long, and provoked no dissents or even concurring opinions. Critical reaction has been overwhelmingly negative. Criticism not withstanding, the Court has not retreated from Whren, but continues to repeat its core holding.

Part I frames the problem in Whren with a story. Part II sets forth the fundamental Fourth Amendment principle underlying this article—the prohibition against arbitrary search and seizure. Part III explains how arbitrariness …

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 …

Bearing False Witness: Perjured Affidavits And The Fourth Amendment, Stephen W. Gard

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

The purpose of this Article is to articulate appropriate legal doctrine to govern the problem of false statements of fact by law enforcement officers in warrant affidavits. This Article addresses the issue in the context of actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress such Fourth Amendment violations. This perspective promises to be interesting and unique for two reasons. First, the fact that the guilty are ordinarily the direct beneficiaries of the Fourth Amendment has long been a matter of grave concern. In contrast, rarely, if ever, will anyone except an innocent victim of a search based on …

Computer Searches And Seizure, Donald Resseguie

Cleveland State Law Review

This note will discuss legal issues related to search and seizure of computers and define the trend that the law is taking in the emerging area of inquiry. Personal privacy protection will be adequate regarding computer searches and seizures only if the courts properly balance the government's interests in bringing criminals to justice against citizens' interests against overly broad inquiries into the personal affairs. Section II provides a limited general discussion of constitutional limitations on search and seizure. Section III will discuss search and seizure of computers in the context of the "plain view" doctrine as an exception to the …

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 …

Seizures Of The Fourth Kind: Changing The Rules, Harry M. Caldwell

Cleveland State Law Review

While a large percentage of police-citizen encounters may be classified readily as falling within the protections of the fourth amendment, a number of them are difficult to categorize. Since the decision in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court has been grappling with the issue of when such encounters do, in fact, mandate fourth amendment protection. The Court's most recent pronouncement in this area, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, involved an Immigration and Naturalization Service factory sweep and the ensuing encounter between immigration officials and plant employees. In this significant and controversial opinion, the Court found that the Delgado …

United States V. Robinson, Thomas E. Downey Jr., Patrick J. Alcox, Thomas F. Harper, Michael Kieffer

Cleveland State Law Review

This article provides an overview of fourth amendment litigation that focused on the question of what constitutes an “unreasonable” search. The Supreme Court had previously provided guidance in Terry v. Ohio and Chimel v. California. This article provides a brief overview of these cases, and then it turns to more thoroughly examine the decision in US v. Robinson.

Katz And The Fourth Amendment: A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Or, A Man's Home Is His Fort, Richard L. Aynes

Cleveland State Law Review

While there are a great many cases and commentaries treating fourth amendment rights, little attention has been given to the circumstances that must exist in order for it to be said that a search and seizure has taken place. The purpose of this note is to explore the issues involved in determining when the conduct of law enforcement officers constitutes a search and seizure. Consideration will be given to Katz v. United States, which established the test to be applied in making this determination; to the application of Katz and its effect upon fourth amendment protections; to alternatives for the …

Fourth Amendment Limitations On Eavesdropping And Wire-Tapping, David H. Hines

Cleveland State Law Review

The subject of eavesdropping, wiretapping, and electronic surveillance has induced many legal writers to comment on the law and urge legislative changes.This paper will analyze the constitutional aspects of eavesdropping as well as the common law concerning eavesdropping as it exists today.