Criminal Procedure Commons^™

The Fourth Amendment And Its Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

"The history of liberty," Justice Felix Frankfurter once noted, "has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards" and "the history of the destruction of liberty," Professor Anthony Amsterdam has added, "has largely been the history of the relaxation of those safeguards in the face of plausible sounding governmental claims of a need to deal with widely frightening and emotion freighted threats to the good order of society." These plausible-sounding government claims are being heard today -and they are putting enormous pressure on the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional provision that protects "the right of the people to be secure …

Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Alabama V. White: Anonymous Tip Held Sufficient Basis For Investigatory Stop Under Fourth Amendment, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 909 (1991), Martin K. Berks

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evaluating The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Problem Of Police Compliance With The Law, William C. Heffernan, Richard W. Lovely

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this article reviews background matters bearing on our research - in particular, we discuss the Court's framework for analyzing exclusion as a deterrent safeguard, the research questions that need to be raised within that framework, and the research strategy we adopted in light of the Court's approach to exclusion. Part II analyzes our findings on police knowledge of the rules of search and seizure. Part III analyzes our findings on officers' willingness to obey the law. Part IV evaluates our findings in light of policy questions concerning the exclusionary rule. We consider whether the Court should retain …

James V. Illinois: Wither The Exclusionary Rule - Not Quite Yet, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 493 (1991), David H. Norris

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Horton V. California: The Plain View Doctrine Loses Its Inadvertency, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 891 (1991), John A. Mack

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exigent Circumstances Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of High-Speed Pursuits Under The Fourth And Fourteenth Amendments, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Controlling Discretion By Administrative Regulations: The Use, Misuse, And The Nonuse Of Police Rules And Policies In Fourth Amendment Adjudication, Wayne R. Lafave

Michigan Law Review

In assaying fourth amendment jurisprudence, it is useful to take into account available knowledge regarding the actual search and seizure practices of the police. Especially helpful is the perspective afforded by the American Bar Foundation's Survey of the Administration of Criminal Justice in the United States, which ranks as the preeminent empirical study of law enforcement procedures in this country. Despite the fact - or, more likely, because of the fact that the ABF Survey was published over twenty years ago, certain insights from that study highlight some recent and significant changes in this corpus juris inconstans .

Clearly "the …

Beyond The Warren Court And Its Conservative Critics: Toward A Unified Theory Of Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Donald A. Dripps

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I develops more fully the differences that divide liberal and conservative commentators on criminal procedure, taking special note of the series of Reports prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy and published recently in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Part II explains my disquiet with the suggestion that original-meaning jurisprudence ought to guide criminal procedure doctrine. Part II also defends the thesis that the fourteenth amendment protects the individual interest in freedom from unjust punishment, rather than any abstract interest in truth for its own sake. Part III considers two familiar controversies in criminal …

Solving The Pretext Puzzle: The Importance Of Ulterior Motives And Fabrications In The Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment Pretext Doctrine, Edwin J. Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article first analyzes the debate between Professors John M. Burkoff and James B. Haddad over the current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the pretext issue. It shows that the Supreme Court's definition of pretext is broader than the definition of pretext used by these commentators. The Supreme Court's definition includes both "legal" and fabricated pretexts. In a "legal" pretext, the government offers a justification that is not the true reason for the police activity, but that, if the motivation of the officer is not considered, legally justifies the activity. In a fabricated pretext, the government offers a justification …

Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remembering The 'Old World' Of Criminal Procedure: A Reply To Professor Grano, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I graduated from high school in 1961, the "old world" of criminal procedure still existed, albeit in its waning days; when I graduated from law school in 1968, circa the time most of today's first-year law students were arriving on the scene, the "new world" had fully dislodged the old. Indeed, the force of the new world's revolutionary impetus already had crested. Some of the change that the criminal procedure revolution effected was for the better, but much of it, at least as some of us see it, was decidedly for the worse. My students, however, cannot make the …

The Law Of Pretrial Interrogation, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The existing rules in the United States governing the questioning of suspects in custody are based on the Supreme Court's five to four decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Court in Miranda promulgated a new, code-like set of rules for custodial questioning, including the creation of a right to counsel in connection with custodial questioning, a requirement of warnings, a prohibition of questioning unless the suspect affirmatively waives the rights set out in the warnings, and a prohibition of questioning if the suspect asks for a lawyer or indicates in any manner that he is unwilling to talk. These …

The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This guaranty is not self-executing, however, and the courts and criminal justice systems in this country have long been bedeviled by questions concerning appropriate methods of ensuring its observance. As a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio, the method principally relied upon today is a judicially created rule excluding from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights.

The search and seizure …

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

Diminishing Expectations Of Privacy In The Rehnquist Court, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 825 (1989), Laurence A. Benner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: It's Time The Court Shed Some Light On The Use Of Ultraviolet Lamps, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 877 (1989), M. Jeffrey Tucker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Trespass And The Fourth Amendment: A Wall In Need Of Mending, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 795 (1989), Clifford S. Fishman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Trespass And The Fourth Amendment: A Wall In Need Of Mending, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

Part I of this article provides an overview of basic Fourth Amendment principles. Part II analyzes the Oliver and Ciraolo cases which define and distinguish residential "curtilage," protected by the Fourth Amendment, and "open fields," which the Fourth Amendment does not protect. Part III reviews the Dow decision's discussion of whether an industrial facility, like a residence, might have constitutionally protected curtilage. Part IV focuses on the Dunn decision, which dramatizes the curtilage-open field dichotomy while at the same time blurring the line between the two. Finally, part V shows how these decisions may have invalidated the "commercial curtilage" concept …

Arizona V. Hicks: Probable Cause Requirement Under The Plain View Doctrine, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 903 (1988), Robert J. Kuker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Griffin V. Wisconsin Warrantless Probation Searches - Do The State's Needs Warrant Such Strict Measures, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 921 (1988), William Blake Weiler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bright Line Seizures: The Need For Clarity In Determining When Fourth Amendment Activity Begins, Edwin J. Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article proposes that the Mendenhall-Royer standard, as presently interpreted, should be discarded because it is unworkable and fails to strike the appropriate balance between the liberty interests of citizens and the interest of the state in combatting crime. The test is unworkable because the outcomes of cases turn on subtle factual distinctions unrelated to an individual's actual freedom to end an encounter with a police officer, making it difficult for police officers to apply the standard in the field and adjust their conduct accordingly. Moreover, the standard provides insufficient protection for an individual's rights by failing to consider the …

Administrative Searches For Evidence Of Crime: The Impact Of New York V. Burger, Perry S. Reich

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It is not . . . easy to see what the shock-the-conscience test adds, or should be allowed to add, to the deterrent function of exclusionary rules. Where no deterrence of unconstitutional police behavior is possible, a decision to exclude probative evidence with the result that a criminal goes free to prey upon the public should shock the judicial conscience even more than admitting the evidence. So spoke Judge Robert H. Bork, concurring in a ruling that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches conducted exclusively by foreign officials. A short time thereafter, when an interviewer …