Law Commons^™

Border Searches In The Age Of Terrorism, Robert M. Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

This article will first explore the history of border searches. It will look to the reorganization of the border enforcement apparatus resulting from 9/11 as well as the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and border searches generally. Then, it will analyze the Supreme Court's last statement on border searches in the Flores-Montano27 decision, including what impact this decision has had on the lower courts. Finally, the article will focus on Fourth Amendment cases involving terrorism concerns after 9/11, as a means of drawing some conclusions about the effect the emerging emphasis on terrorism and national security concerns will likely have …

Arizona V. Gant: Decoding The Meaning Of Reasonable Belief, Geoffrey S. Corn

Geoffrey S. Corn

This article addresses the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant as to when police may search an automobile after the recent arrestee is secured and no longer able to access the vehicle. In Gant, the Court authorized such a search whenever the police have ‘reasonable belief’ evidence related to the crime of arrest may be in the automobile. However, the Court did not define the meaning of reasonable belief. This has led to various lower court interpretations, ranging from reasonable suspicion to probable cuase.

This article first explains why treating reasonable belief as synonymous with …

Schneckloth V. Bustamonte: History’S Unspoken Fourth Amendment Anomaly, Brian Gallini

Brian Gallini

Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Section 1983 Decisions: (October 2001 Term), Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Death To Dying Declarations! The Case For Killing A Hearsay Exception, Samuel T. Bernier

Samuel T Bernier

No abstract provided.

Strands Of Privacy: Privacy Rights And Dna Sample Collection From Federal Criminal Defendants Charged With Felonies, Justin Dickerson

Justin Dickerson

On September 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Pool that the U.S. government can require federal defendants charged with felonies to provide a DNA sample as a condition of pre-trial release. The chain of rulings that led to this decision was set into motion in January 2009 when Jerry Arbert Pool was indicted in the Eastern District of California for possessing and receiving child pornography in violation of two federal statutes. Pool agreed to all of the court's bail conditions, except for one—Pool refused to provide a DNA sample. In his appeal to the Ninth Circuit, …

Excluding Exclusion: How Herring Jeopardizes The Fourth Amendment's Protections Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Hariqbal Basi

Hariqbal Basi

For nearly a half-century, the exclusionary rule has remained an important mechanism for ensuring police compliance with the Fourth Amendment and deterring unconstitutional searches and seizures. In January 2009, the Supreme Court held in Herring v. United States that the exclusionary rule does not apply to good faith negligent police behavior. This significantly broadened the law, and severely limits the future application of the exclusionary rule. Furthermore, this holding has strong potential for abuse by police departments. By analogizing to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence and Miranda rights, I argue that the ruling in Herring needs to be limited in order to …