Constitutional Law Commons^™

A Constitutional Analysis Of Indiana's "Fleeing A Police Officer" Statute, Jane Mallor

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Reconsideration Of The Fourth Amendment's Doctrine Of Search Incident To Arrest.Pdf, David Aaronson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

INTRODUCTION: The doctrine of search incident to arrest provides that, as an incident to every lawful full custody arrest, law enforcement officers have an automatic right to conduct a thorough search of the arrestee and the area within his immediate control.' Although the Supreme Court has stated that the search incident to arrest exception to the fourth amendment's general requirement of a search warrant has been "settled from its first enunciation," the doctrine should be reexamined in terms of constitutional jurisprudence.

Section 1983 And The "Background" Of Tort Liability, Sheldon H. Nahmod

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Fourth Amendment - A Witness May Not Invoke The Exclusionary Rule To Suppress Evidence Before The Grand Jury Or As A Basis For Refusing To Answer Questions Based On Evidence Seized In Violation Of His Fourth Amendment Rights, Leland G. Ripley

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Search And Seizure Of Private Papers: Fourth And Fifth Amendment Considerations, Steven H. Shiffrin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

There is a recognizable factual distinction between the search and seizure of private papers and the search and seizure of non-documentary items. It is difficult, however, to decide when such a distinction should assume constitutional dimensions. Specifically, are there circumstances under which private papers should be immune from search and seizure? In a 1967 landmark case, Warden v. Hayden, the United States Supreme Court raised doubts concerning the continued validity of decades of settled law on this important issue. Warden's reopening of this problem aroused the curiosity of commentators, spurred new policy arguments in the American Law Institute, divided …

Fact Style Adjudication And The Fourth Amendment: The Limits Of Lawyering, Roger B. Dworkin

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And Privilege Holders: Conditioning The Issuance Of A Liquor License Upon Consent To A Warrantless Search, William W. Gooden

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Chamber V. Maroney: New Dimensions In The Law Of Search And Seizure, Stephen H. Paul

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

68/06/11 Police Won't Abuse Frisk Power Upheld By High Court, Says Blackwell, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Cleveland Police Chief Michael J. Blackwell says police won't abuse new stop-and-frisk authority granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Terry v. Ohio decision. Cleveland ACLU representative Bernard A. Berkman disagrees with the Court decision saying "I think to rummage a person for evidence and to convict him without probable cause is offensive to the Constitution."

68/06/10 Right To Frisk Gets Supreme Court Ok, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Summarizes the Court's opinion in Terry v Ohio, including quotes from the majority opinion. Also include quotes from Detective Marty McFadden, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor John T. Corrigan as well as Bernard A. Berkman, Cleveland representative of the ACLU.

68/02/14 High Court Decision Awaited In Police "Stop And Frisk" Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Newspaper Coverage

Recaps the events of the case and describes how "police, prosecutors, and others concerned with rising crime rates fear that the Supreme Court may ban or drastically curtail 'stop and frisk,' depriving police of an invaluable investigative tool." Also describes the NAACP brief in which expresses concern that "inhabitants of our inner cities, racial minorities and the underprivileged" will be targeted disproportionately by police.

68/02/01 Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, Erwin N. Griswold, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg, Mervyn Hamburg

United States Supreme Court

"In sum, we believe that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment to recognize a power in law enforcement officers to detain and question under circumstances amounting to less than probable cause for a formal arrest, and that, in exercising such power, the officer may legitimately protect himself by a frisk for dangerous weapons" -- from page 18.

67/12/12 Supreme Court Hears Stop-Frisk Case, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Reports on Louis Stokes argument that upholding Terry's frisking by Detective Martin McFadden would signal the relaxing of the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure. Reuben Payne, assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, contended that the McFadden had the right to search Terry whom he suspected was planning a robbery and probably was armed.

67/12/12 Oral Arguments Before The Us Supreme Court, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne, Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall

United States Supreme Court

Tuesday, December 12, 1967 oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court.

67/12/11 High Court To Eye Frisk Case, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Newspaper Coverage

Reports how the Court is hearing Terry v. Ohio along with 3 others cases with stop-and-frisk issues. The Court will explore:

How much right does a policeman have to stop and question a suspicious person he has no legal reason to arrest?

If a policeman frisks a person he does not have a reason to arrest and finds incriminating evidence, can that evidence be used against the person in court.

67/11/17 Brief Of Americans For Effective Law Enforcement, As Amicus Curiae, James R. Thompson

United States Supreme Court

"Despite the evidence which has been found of cases in which some police have abused field interrogation in some instances - evidence upon which the amicus relies so heavily - the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice unanimously recommends its adoption and use :

"The Commission believes that there is a definite need to authorize the police to stop suspects and possible witnesses of major crimes, to detain them for brief questioning if they will not voluntarily cooperate, and to search such suspects for dangerous weapons when such precaution is necessary."

This Amicus Curiae requests that the …

67/11/13 Brief Of National District Attorneys Assocation Amicus Curiae, In Support Of Respondent, Harry Wood, Harry E. Sondheim, Brenden T. Byrne, Charles Moylan Jr., Evelle T. Younger

United States Supreme Court

No abstract provided.

67/11/03 Brief For Respondent, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan

United States Supreme Court

No abstract provided.

67/10/25 Brief Of Attorney General Of The State Of New York As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Maria L. Marcus, Brenda Soloff

United States Supreme Court

New York Attorney General Amicus Curiae brief argues that police should be able to stop and question suspects whom they reasonably believe have or are planning to commit a felony.

67/10/18 Brief For Petitioner, Terry, Louis Stokes, Jack G. Day

United States Supreme Court

No abstract provided.

67/09/27 Brief Of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Of Ohio, And New York Civil Liberties Union, Amici Curiae, Thomas H. Barnard, Irwin M. Feldman, Lewis R. Katz, Bernard A. Berkman, Lewis A. Stern, Melvin L. Wulf, Alan H. Levine

United States Supreme Court

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of New York and New York Civil Liberties Union's Amici Curiae Brief arguing against the "stop-and-frisk" practice as seen in Terry v. Ohio and Chilton v. Ohio, Peters v. New York, and Sibron v. New York.

67/08/31 Brief For The N.A.A.C.P Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., As Amicus Curiae, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit Iii, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, Anthony G. Amsterdam, William E. Mcdaniels Jr.

United States Supreme Court

"The Court should hold that neither stops nor frisks may be made without probable cause. In each of these cases, the judgment of conviction should be reversed" -- conclusion, p. 69.

67/05/17 Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Reuben M. Payne, John T. Corrigan

United States Supreme Court

No abstract provided.

67/01/12 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Ohio, Louis Stokes

United States Supreme Court

Argues that the introduction of evidence (their guns) against Terry and Chilton violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that "bare suspicion alone" does not meet the requirements for "probable cause" set forth in the Forth and Fourteenth Amendments.

67/01/11 Docket And Journal Entries, Court Of Appeals, Emil J. Masgay

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

Docket and journal entries for Ohio v. Terry and Ohio v. Chilton, prepared by Emil J. Masgay, Clerk of Courts at the Eighth Judicial District Court of Appeals.

67/01/09 Precipe, Louis Stokes

United States Supreme Court

Precipe asking the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County to prepare and file with the United States Supreme Court a certified transcript of the docket, and journal entries together with the original papers and including the Court's opinion in State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton.

66/10/20 Police Can Search, High Court Rules, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden's search of John W. Terry and Richard D. Chilton (represented by Louis Stokes) did not violate their constitutional rights because McFadden felt they were acting "in a suspicious manner."

66/10/19 Mandate, Ohio Supreme Court, Supreme Court Of Ohio

Ohio Supreme Court

Mandate to Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, to proceed without delay to carry out its judgment in Ohio v Terry citing no substantial constitution question involved.

66/09/21 Motion To Dismiss Appeal Filed As Of Right And Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction, John T. Corrigan, Reuben M. Payne

Ohio Supreme Court

"The trial court properly found that there is a distinction between a frisk and a search, and that in the circumstances of this case the frisk preceded the arrest, and further, that the arrest and search in connection therewith were legal. The opinion of the Court of Appeals and the authorities cited therein support that conclusion. The defendant has not shown any valid reason why these findings should be disturbed. The motion for leave to appeal should therefore be overruled." From the Conclusion, page 14.

66/06/14 Notice Of Appeal For Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Louis Stokes

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

Louis Stokes gives notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court from judgment rendered by 8th District Court of Appeals on May 25, 1966. Appeal is on questions of law and on condition that motion for leave to appeal be allowed by Supreme Court of Ohio; constitutional question is also involved.