Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Future Of The Fourth Amendment: The Problem With Privacy, Poverty And Policing, Kami Chavis Simmons

Faculty Publications

For decades, the reasonable expectation of privacy has been the primary standard by which courts have determined whether a "search" has occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. v. Jones, however, has reinvigorated the physical trespass doctrine's importance when determining whether there has been a "search" triggering constitutional protection. Recognizing the unpredictability of the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine and that doctrine's bias against the urban poor, many scholars hope that the Jones opinion may ameliorate the class divide that has developed in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

This Article argues that while …

Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey Kahn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Must Treaty Violations Be Remedied?: A Critique Of Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon, John Quigley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Speedy Trial Right And National Security Detentions: Critical Comments On United States V. Ghailani, Anthony O'Rourke

Journal Articles

This article reviews the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to uphold the conviction and sentence of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the sole Guantánamo detainee to have been transferred to the United States for trial. Ghailani was captured nearly five years before his arraignment and argued that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the delay. The article contends that, in rejecting Ghailani’s argument, the Second Circuit distorted the doctrinal framework governing speedy trial claims and mischaracterized the interests that the speedy trial right is intended to protect. The article also explores …

The Framers' Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Mounting Evidence, Roger Roots

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Probing Into Salinas's Silence: Back To The "Accused Speaks" Model?, Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Yuval Merin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Jones V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, Kylee Gloekner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined (1) whether a criminal defendant’s access to the courts can be restricted by the district court when he or she is challenging a judgment of conviction and sentence or the computation of time served under a judgment of conviction; and (2) whether there is an established approach courts should take when restricting the access.

Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Charles E. Cox Jr.

Mercer Law Review

Each year the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issue numerous decisions concerning the rights afforded to criminal defendants by the United States Constitution. This Article surveys selected Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court decisions issued in 2013 that will likely be of interest to criminal law practitioners.

Gideon V. Wainwright--From A 1963 Perspective, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Gideon v. Wainwright is more than a “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in the field of constitutional criminal procedure. As evidenced by the range of celebrators of Gideon’s Fiftieth Anniversary (extending far beyond the legal academy) and Gideon’s inclusion in the basic coverage of high school government courses, Gideon today is an icon of the American justice system. I have no quarrel with that iconic status, but I certainly did not see any such potential in Gideon when I analyzed the Court’s ruling shortly after it was announced in March of 1963. I had previously agreed to write an article for …

State V. Brossart: Adapting The Fourth Amendment For A Future With Drones, Thomas Bryan

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Conversational Consent Search: How “Quick Look” And Other Similar Searches Have Eroded Our Constitutional Rights, Alexander A. Mikhalevsky

Georgia State University Law Review

One area in which law enforcement agencies have stretched constitutional limits concerns the scope of a suspect’s consent to search his or her vehicle. Police forces across the country have tested the limits of consent by asking vague, conversational questions to suspects with the goal of obtaining a suspect’s consent to search, even though that individual may not want to allow the search or may not know that he or she has the right to deny consent.

Conversational phrases like “Can I take a quick look?” or “Can I take a quick look around?” have “emerg[ed] as . . . …

53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series, The Hon. Justice John Paul Stevens

Georgia State University Law Review

Remarks by the Honorable John Paul Stevens, Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the 53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series.

Dirty Secrets: The First Amendment In Protective-Order Litigation, Dustin B. Benham

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For Rational Basis Review Of General Suspicionless Searches And Seizures, Richard C. Worf

Touro Law Review

This article examines the constitutional status of suspicionless searches and seizures of groups- an exceedingly important question in the age of terror, and a subject recently brought back to the forefront by the searches of subway passengers in New York City. It draws on process theory to argue that when a legislature has authorized a group search or seizure, courts should generally apply rational basis review.

First, other areas of constitutional doctrine exhibit deep trust in the power of groups to protect their interests in political process, and there is no reason why fourth amendment doctrine should not do the …

Criminal Court, New York County, People V. Dejesus, Justin Goldberg

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Buari, Matthew Moisan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Family Court, Queens County, In Re German F. And Hector R., Angelique Hermanowski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Tam, Elaine Yang

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Mcfarley, Erica R. Borgese

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

County Court, Nassau County, People V. Osbourne, Diane Matero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Smith, Jennifer Belk

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of Death Penalty Decisions From The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Ramchair, Joseph Maehr

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Family Court Of New York, Nassau County - In Re S.S., Steven Fox

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - Polito V. Walsh, William Pike

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - People V. Ruppert, Sardar Asadullah

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - People V. Willette, Mark Tsukerman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Sentencing Schemes Across The Nation, Sarah A. Mourer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Death By Irrelevance: The Unconstitutionality Of Virginia’S Continued Exclusion Of Prison Conditions Evidence To Assess The Future Dangerousness Of Capital Defendants, Andrew Lindsey

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note argues that Virginia statutory and case law requiring the exclusion of prison conditions evidence in capital trials where the jury must determine defendants’ future dangerousness is unconstitutional. In Part I, I present certain portions of a hypothetical capital trial in Virginia to introduce readers to the concepts of prison conditions evidence and future dangerousness, and why they are important to capital defendants. In Part II, I trace the development of the constitutional right that is violated by the exclusion of this evidence, as well as how Virginia has come to justify its exclusionary stance based on a flawed …