Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Big Bill Haywood's Revenge: The Original Intent Of The Exclusionary Rule, Milton Hirsch

St. Thomas Law Review

We have been given fair warning. In two recent cases, Hudson v. Michigan and Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court made clear its desire to phase out the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule - that century-old ornament of constitutional jurisprudence pursuant to which evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure will not be received in court. Justice Scalia, writing for a bare majority in Hudson, argued that the utility, if any, of the exclusionary rule has run its course; and that the rule itself is better supplanted by alternative means of …

Diminishing Probable Cause And Minimalist Searches, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

This paper comments on recent Supreme Court opinions that have used phrases such as "reasonable belief" and "reason to believe" when analyzing intrusions that generally require proof of probable cause. Historically, the Court used these terms as shorthand references for both probable cause and reasonable suspicion. While this lack of precision was unobjectionable when the concepts were interchangeable, that has not been true since Terry v. Ohio created a distinction between the two standards. When the Justices then resurrect these terms without situating them in the dichotomy between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, it is not clear whether they are …

Herring V. United States: Mapp's "Artless" Overruling?, Michael Vitiello

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

The Return Of Reasonableness: Saving The Fourth Amendment From The Supreme Court, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Although there is no recipe for defining Fourth Amendment reasonableness, the Supreme Court produces its most anomalous Fourth Amendment outcomes when it decides "mixed" questions of reasonableness, assessing issues that turn on how ordinary, prudent citizens think and behave. The Court treats these mixed issues, combinations of fact and law, as if they raise purely legal questions. But mixed issues are more complex and require someone to determine historical facts, apply those facts to principles of Fourth Amendment law, and consider the totality of the circumstances, including taking into account community and cultural influences. The Supreme Court will take its …

The Constable Blunders But Isnt Punished Does Hudson V Michigans Abolition Of The Exclusionary Rule Extend Beyond Knockandannounce Violations, Mark A. Summers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

‘Move On’ Orders As Fourth Amendment Seizures, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

If a police officer orders one to move on, must the recipient comply? This article analyzes whether there is a federal constitutional right to remain, and in particular whether a police command to move on constitutes a seizure of the person for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Although it is a close question, I conclude that the Fourth Amendment typically does not restrict a move on (MO) order, and that substantive due process only prohibits the most egregious such orders. It is a question of broad significance given the many legitimate reasons police might order persons to move on, as …

Bearing False Witness: Perjured Affidavits And The Fourth Amendment, Stephen W. Gard

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

The purpose of this Article is to articulate appropriate legal doctrine to govern the problem of false statements of fact by law enforcement officers in warrant affidavits. This Article addresses the issue in the context of actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress such Fourth Amendment violations. This perspective promises to be interesting and unique for two reasons. First, the fact that the guilty are ordinarily the direct beneficiaries of the Fourth Amendment has long been a matter of grave concern. In contrast, rarely, if ever, will anyone except an innocent victim of a search based on …

Roth At Fifty: Reconsidering The Common Law Antecedents Of American Obscenity Doctrine, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 393 (2008), James R. Alexander

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure In Perspective, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

This Article attempts to situate the Supreme Court's constitutional criminal procedure jurisprudence in the academic debates surrounding the reasonable person standard, in particular, the extent to which objective standards should incorporate a particular individual's subjective characteristics. Analyzing the Supreme Court's search and seizure and confessions opinions, I find that the Court shifts opportunistically from case to case between subjective and objective tests, and between whose point of view - the police officer's or the defendant's - it views as controlling. Moreover, these deviations cannot be explained either by the principles the Court claims underlie the various constitutional provisions at issue …

Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran

Articles

I have no idea whether my death will be noted in the New York Times. But if it is, I fear the headline of my obituary will look something like: "Professor Dies; Lost Hudson v. Michigan' in Supreme Court, Leading to Abolition of Exclusionary Rule." The very existence of this Symposium panel shows, I think, that my fear is well-grounded. On the other hand, I am not quite as fearful that Hudson foreshadows the complete overruling of Mapp v. Ohio2 and Weeks v. United States3 as I was when I published an article just three months after the Hudson decision …

Garbage Pails And Puppy Dog Tails: Is That What Katz Is Made Of?, Aya Gruber

Publications

This Article takes the opportunity of the fortieth anniversary of Katz v. U.S. to assess whether the revolutionary case's potential to provide broad and flexible privacy protection to individuals has been realized. Answering this question in a circumspect way, the Article pinpoints the language in Katz that was its eventual undoing and demonstrates how the Katz test has been plagued by two principle problems that have often rendered it more harmful to than protective of privacy. The manipulation problem describes the tendency of conservative courts to define reasonable expectations of privacy as lower than the expectations society actually entertains. The …

Bringing An End To Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Bryan A. Stillwagon

Georgia Law Review

Cell phones keep society connected, and exploring their contents reveals a glimpse into the user's life. As technology develops and these phones advance, this glimpse becomes a more complete picture of the user's life. The Fourth Amendment speaks of a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, but this right is threatened when judges permit the few exceptions to the warrant requirement to envelop the general rule. This Note begins with a brief review of the history of both cellphones and warrantless searches, followed by the recent history of warrantless cell phone searches. While focusing on the search- …

Congressional Oversight Of National Security Activities: Improving Information Funnels, Heidi Kitrosser

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Standing Room Only: Why Fourth Amendment Exclusion And Standing Can No Longer Logically Coexist, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Standing Room Only: Why Fourth Amendment Exclusion And Standing Can No Longer Logically Coexist, Sherry F. Colb

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tied Up In Knotts? Gps Technology And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial and scholarly assessment of emerging technology seems poised to drive the Fourth Amendment down one of three paths. The first would simply relegate the amendment to a footnote in history books by limiting its reach to harms that the framers specifically envisioned. A modified version of this first approach would dispense with expansive constitutional notions of privacy and replace them with legislative fixes. A third path offers the amendment continued vitality but requires the U.S. Supreme Court to overhaul its Fourth Amendment analysis. Fortunately, a fourth alternative is available to cabin emerging technologies within the existing doctrinal framework. Analysis …

Wiretapping And Eavesdropping: Surveillance In The Internet Age, 3rd Ed., Anne T. Mckenna, Clifford S. Fishman

Books

The third edition of the seminal “Fishman & McKenna” Wiretapping treatise analyzes federal and state law and the rapidly evolving civil and criminal legal issues and privacy issues surrounding the Internet, computers, cellular devices, electronic location tracking, drones, and biometrics. Since its publication, this treatise has been cited in multiple published federal and state judicial opinions, including by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in August 2010 and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in August 2014. The third edition is a well-known resource for attorneys working in private practice and in …

Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

For at least thirty years the Supreme Court has adhered to its third-party doctrine in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, meaning that so far as a disclosing party is concerned, information in the hands of a third party receives no Fourth Amendment protection. The doctrine was controversial when adopted, has been the target of sustained criticism, and is the predominant reason that the Katz revolution has not been the revolution many hoped it would be. Some forty years after Katz the Court's search jurisprudence largely remains tied to property conceptions. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, however, the doctrine is not the …

Fourth Amendment Lessons From The Highway And The Subway: A Principled Approach To Suspicionless Searches, Ricardo J. Bascuas

Articles

The threat of future terrorist attacks has sped the proliferation of random, suspicionless searches and seizures, such as those now made of New York City subway riders. Courts assess the legality of such searches with an inherently flawed balancing test developed to assess searches and seizures made without "probable cause." Although scholars and Justices alike have decried the resort to balancing individual interests against the government's need to search, no alternative framework has been proposed. This Article proposes a more principled, objective inquiry for determining when suspicionless searches can be made. To eliminate the need for balancing, this Article advances …

Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment And Search And Seizure—Introducing The Supreme Court's New And Improved Summers Detention: Now Equipped With Handcuffing And Questioning! Muehler V. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), Ryan J. Caststeel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This note explores the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Muehler v. Mena that extended the holding in Michigan v. Summers that allows police officers to handcuff and question occupants of a house who are lawfully being detained during the execution of a valid search warrant. First, the note examines the facts behind the Mena case itself. Second, the note explores the historical developments in Fourth Amendments jurisprudence that led up to the Mena decision. This section of the note focuses on the following five main topics: (1) the creation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) the evolution of the …

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

The Technology Of Surveillance: Will The Supreme Court's Expectations Ever Resemble Society's?, Stephen Henderson

Other Faculty Publications

For law students studying criminal procedure—or at least for those cramming for the exam—it becomes a mantra: government conduct only implicates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches if it invades a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This is not the contemporary definition of the word “search,” nor was it the definition at the time of the founding. But, via a well-intentioned concurrence by Justice Harlan in the famous 1967 case of Katz v. United States, it became the Court’s definition.This lack of fealty to the English language left some questions. For example, is determining whether someone has a “reasonable expectation …

Reflections On Standing: Challenges To Searches And Seizures In A High Technology World, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

Among the profound issues that surround constitutional criminal procedure is the obscure often overlooked issue of who has standing to challenge an illegal search, seizure or confession. Privacy interests are often overlooked because without a legal status that allows a person to complain in court, there is no way to challenge whether one is constitutionally protected from personal invasions. Standing is that procedural barrier often imposed to prevent a person in a case from objecting to improper police conduct because of his or her relationship of ownership, proximity, location, or interest in an item searched or a thing seized. Although …

Declining To State A Name In Consideration Of The Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause And Law Enforcement Databases After Hiibel, Joseph R. Ashby

Michigan Law Review

In response to a report of an argument on a public sidewalk, a police officer approaches two people standing in the vicinity of the reported dispute. The officer requests that each person provide her name so the officer can run the names through databases to which the police department subscribes. After searching each name through various databases, the officer might discover that one of the individuals made several purchases of cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine and that the other just received a license from the State to procure certain hazardous chemicals. These two people might be in the early stages of …

The Price Of Pretrial Release: Can We Afford To Keep Our Fourth Amendment Rights?, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

The Fourth Amendment serves an important constitutional function. It protects the privacy of Americans from intrusions on their personal security. Few rights are held more sacred. When a person is arrested and faces the real likelihood of pretrial detention in jail, the person risks not only a reduction in his privacy rights, but also a loss of his liberty. In such circumstances, the arrested person should be able to bargain away some of his Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the additional freedoms associated with release to home.

Undoubtedly, defendants forced to choose between incarceration and Fourth Amendment rights will …

The Reasonable Policeman: Police Intent In Criminal Procedure, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Learning From All Fifty States: How To Apply The Fourth Amendment And Its State Analogs To Protect Third Party Information From Unreasonable Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

We are all aware of, and many commentators are critical of, the Supreme Court's third-party doctrine, under which information provided to third parties receives no Fourth Amendment protection. This constitutional void becomes increasingly important as technology and social norms dictate that increasing amounts of disparate information are available to third parties. But we are not solely dependent upon the Federal Constitution. We may have more constitutional protection as citizens of states, each of which has a constitutional cognate or analog to the Federal Fourth Amendment. As Justice Brennan urged in a famous 1977 article, those provisions should be interpreted to …

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Form Over Substance? Qualified Immunity In Groh V. Ramirez, Lenard F. Harrelson Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In Groh v. Ramirez, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a search warrant may be so facially defective that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. The Court reasoned that the warrant deficiency in this case, revolving around the particularity requirement, flows directly from the text of the Fourth Amendment, and thus, no reasonable officer could believe a warrant that obviously did not comply with this standard was valid. The Court proceeded to deny the executing officer qualified immunity by holding that reliance upon this facially defective warrant was objectively unreasonable. …