Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Fourth Amendment

Seattle University School of Law

Seattle University Law Review

Jurisprudence

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

School “Safety” Measures Jump Constitutional Guardrails, Maryam Ahranjani Jan 2021

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. …


Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr. Oct 2020

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr.

Seattle University Law Review

This essay posits that Justice Sotomayor is the Court’s chief defender of the Fourth Amendment and the cherished values it protects. She has consistently defended Fourth Amendment freedoms—in majority, concurring, and especially in dissenting opinions. Part I recounts a few of her majority opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. Part II examines her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones. Part III examines several of her dissenting opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. A review of these opinions demonstrates what should be clear to any observer of the Supreme Court: Justice Sotomayor consistently defends Fourth Amendment principles and values.


Preservation Requests And The Fourth Amendment, Armin Tadayon Oct 2020

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. …


Recalibrating Suspicion In An Era Of Hazy Legality, Deborah Ahrens Jan 2020

Recalibrating Suspicion In An Era Of Hazy Legality, Deborah Ahrens

Seattle University Law Review

After a century of employing varying levels of prohibition enforced by criminal law, the United States has entered an era where individual states are rethinking marijuana policy, and the majority of states have in some way decided to make cannabis legally available. This symposium Article will offer a description of what has happened in the past few years, as well as ideas for how jurisdictions can use the changing legal status of cannabis to reshape criminal procedure more broadly. This Article will recommend that law enforcement no longer be permitted use the smell of marijuana as a reason to search …


The Origin Of Article I, Section 7 Of The Washington State Constitution, Associate Chief Justice Charles W. Johnson, Scott P. Beetham Jan 2008

The Origin Of Article I, Section 7 Of The Washington State Constitution, Associate Chief Justice Charles W. Johnson, Scott P. Beetham

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will demonstrate that history does in fact provide guidance to the intention of the framers when they rejected the language of the Fourth Amendment and adopted the unique language of article I, section 7. Contrary to the Ringer court's assertion, federal and state case law, legal academic articles, and newspaper articles from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century provide a wealth of information from which the rationale behind the framers' decision to choose the specific language in article I, section 7 can be hypothesized.