Law Commons^™

Riley V. California: What It Means For Metadata, Border Searches, And The Future Of Privacy, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Private information is no longer stored only in homes or other areas traditionally protected from warrantless intrusion. The private lives of many citizens are contained in a digital device no larger than the palm of their hand—and carried in public places. But that does not make the data within a cell phone any less private, just as the dialing of a phone number does not voluntarily waive an individual’s right to keep their call log or location private. Remember that we are not talking about individuals suspected of committing violent crimes. The Government is recording the calls and locations of …

Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.

When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years …

Is The Exclusionary Rule Dead?, Craig M. Bradley

Craig M. Bradley

This article discusses the three most recent Supreme Court cases on the exclusionary rule, Hudson, Herring, and Davis. It is not unsympathetic to the Court's desire to create a non-mandatory rule. It argues, however, that the Court's decisions in these three cases has left a rule that is confused and seriously misconceived.

Fourth, Fifth And Sixth Amendment Considerations For Admissibility Of Defendants’ Admissions And Confessions, Nancy Haydt

Nancy Haydt

Over the past three terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered opinions that have great impact on the admissibility of a criminal defendant's statement which constitutes an admission under FRE Rule 801(d)(2). This paper addresses recent High Court rulings implicating Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure rights, Fifth Amendment Rights to silence and to counsel, and Sixth Amendment Right to non-interference with trial counsel in the context of admissions and confessions, and discusses the profound effect these rulings have in Criminal Procedure.

Countering Criminalization: Toward A Youth Development Approach To School Searches, Sarah Jane Forman

Sarah Jane Forman

Every since New Jersey v. T.L.O., the dominant narrative, particularly in inner-city schools, has been that school children are dangerous and violent, drug dealing, gang affiliated, and out of control. Under the rubric of school safety, students are stripped of the full protection afforded by the 4th Amendment while being subjected them to a model of school discipline that utilizes law enforcement officers to enforce school rules. Such policies alienate targeted youth from mainstream society, increasing the lure of counter-culture ideas, decreasing the legitimacy of the rule of law, and feeding the school-to prison pipeline. In section one, I examine …