Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
When “Special Needs” Meet Probable Cause: Denying The Devil Benefit Of Law, Gerald S. Reamey
When “Special Needs” Meet Probable Cause: Denying The Devil Benefit Of Law, Gerald S. Reamey
Faculty Articles
Removing laws to pursue the lawbreaker may be well intentioned, but the result is that society is susceptible to the evils those laws protect against. The traditional Fourth Amendment safeguards--probable cause and warrants--have been abandoned due to the development of a reasonableness standard because of the presence of “special needs” that were used to justify searches. The adoption of this alternative approach to Fourth Amendment interpretation was signalled by the truly landmark case of Terry v. Ohio.
By adopting the “reasonableness” analysis, the Supreme Court altered the impact of the exclusionary rule without directly modifying the rule. After Griffin v. …
Up In Smoke: Fourth Amendment Rights And The Burger Court, Gerald S. Reamey
Up In Smoke: Fourth Amendment Rights And The Burger Court, Gerald S. Reamey
Faculty Articles
When Warren Burger was appointed Chief Justice in 1969, he was expected to lead the Supreme Court away from its liberal, value-laden approach to constitutional adjudication. Indeed, a retrospective of the court’s work during the seventeen years Warren Burger served as Chief Justice reveals the expected conservative trend of the Chief Justice himself, as well as the Supreme Court generally. It does not, however, reflect wholesale rejection of the most controversial civil liberties decisions rendered by the Warren Court. It is also unclear that Chief Justice Burger was responsible for the Court’s retrenchment on civil liberties where it did occur. …
Heitman V. State: The Question Left Unanswered., Matthew W. Paul, Jeffrey L. Van Horn
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 …