Law Commons^™

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

Hariqbal Basi

Abstract- 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 …

"One Free Swerve”?: Requiring Police To Corroborate Anonymous Tips In Order To Establish Reasonable Suspicion For Warrantless Seizure Of Alleged Drunk Drivers, Michael B. Kunz

Michael B Kunz

While the Supreme Court holds that warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable, it has carved out exceptions to the warrant requirement that provide law enforcement officials flexibility with which to conduct their day-to-day investigations. However, in Florida v. J.L. the Court recognized a limit to one such exception by holding that reasonable suspicion cannot be based exclusively on a bare-boned anonymous tip. Nevertheless, the Court complicated this rule by hypothesizing that police might be able to act on a lesser showing of reliability when an anonymous tip alleges a sufficiently great danger. Relying on this abstract idea, a number …

Car Stops, Borders, And Profiling: The Hunt For Undocumented (Illegal?) Immigrants In Border Towns, Brian Gallini, Elizabeth Young

Brian Gallini

Can The American People, Through Their Legislature, Determine What Remedy Should Be Available For Fourth Amendment Violations?, Kevin R. Pettrey

Kevin R Pettrey

The United States Supreme Court, in Hudson and Herring, has opened the door to possible alternative Fourth Amendment remedies. Due to these recent cases, Congress and the states may have room to maneuver legislatively to create a remedy of another kind. This article proposes a statute to serve as an alternative remedy and supports the statute's constitutionality through a careful analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment and related topics.

Leashing The Internet Watchdog: Legislative Restraints On Electronic Surveillance In The U.S. And U.K., John P. Heekin

John P. Heekin

This article examines the legislative approaches undertaken by the United States and the United Kingdom to regulate the surveillance and interception of electronic communications. Drawing from the recognition of individual privacy in each country, the author explores the development and impact of statutory provisions enacted to accomplish effective oversight of the respective intelligence services. In the U.S., the shifting purposes and provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are tracked from implementation to its revisions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Along that timeline, a distinct trend toward greater deference to Executive authority for electronic surveillance …

I Swear: The History And Implications Of The Fourth Amendment’S “Oath Or Affirmation” Requirement, David S. Muraskin

David S Muraskin

This article seeks to reinvigorate the Fourth Amendment’s “Oath or affirmation” requirement. Fourth Amendment scholarship and jurisprudence typically dismiss the requirement as a mere procedural formality. However, reviewing pre-Revolution law and commentaries, early legal developments in the States, and the American justice manuals—treatises published by legal scholars to inform and influence judges and practitioners within the new nation—this article argues that the oath requirement is key to understanding and effectuating the Amendment’s purpose. The article demonstrates that the Amendment was partly motivated by a fear of how the Crown used its search and seizure power, as a primary investigatory tool …

Foreign Surveillance And Incidental U.S. Communications: Concerns Of Amnesty V. Mcconnell, Tarik N. Jallad

Tarik N. Jallad

Even with the most recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, questions still remain regarding the constitutional protections implicated during foreign and U.S. communications. In particular, Amnesty v. McConnell concerns the incidental U.S. communications that could be acquired during warrantless surveillance of a non-U.S. person overseas. While explicit Fourth Amendment protections are in place for U.S. citizens and permanent residents, the same is not true for the non-U.S. person located outside the nation’s borders. In conjunction with the 2008 Amendments Act, FISA attempts to adhere to the murky constitutional requirements demanded in this situation. However, some critics are not …