Criminal Procedure Commons^™

State Constitutions, Freedom Of Expression, And Search And Seizure: Prospects For State Court Reincarnation, Sue Davis, Taunya Lovell Banks

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Police Encouragement And The Fourth Amendment, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 661 (1987), Barry D. Green

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizen's Arrests And The Fourth Amendment--A Fresh Perspective, Howard E. Wallin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Edward L. Barrett, Jr.: The Critic With 'That Quality Of Judiciousness Demanded Of The Court Itself', Yale Kamisar

Articles

Barrett was as talented and as dedicated a law teacher as any of his distinguished (or soon-to-become-distinguished) contemporaries. But Barrett resisted the movement toward new rights in fields where none had existed before. At least, he was quite uneasy about the trend. To be sure, others in law teaching shared Barrett's concern that the clock was spinning too fast. Indeed, some others were quite vociferous about it.' But because his criticism was cerebral rather than emotional - because he fairly stated and fully explored the arguments urging the courts to increase their tempo in developing constitutional rights - Barrett was …

Administrative Search And Seizure Whither The Warrant, Jack M. Kress, Carole D. Iannelli

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Dui Roadblocks: Drunk Drivers Take A Toll On The Fourth Amendment, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 983 (1986), Lazaro Fernandez

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Malley V. Briggs: The Court Offers A Civil Remedy For Fourth Amendment Violations On The Wake Of An Eroding Exclusionary Rule, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1101 (1986), Ellen Keefe-Garner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—Exclusionary Rule—No Good Faith Exception To The Arkansas Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Dale Scroggins

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Models Of The Fourth Amendment, Craig M. Bradley

Michigan Law Review

Fourth amendment critics rank in rows, and it has been repeatedly pointed out that individual cases are inconsistent with each other or that whole chunks of doctrine, such as the automobile exception or the plain view exception, are either misconceived, too broad, or too narrow. But these critics all play the Court on its own field, simply arguing as tenth Justices that the doctrines should be tinkered with in different ways than the Court has done. This Article, in contrast, suggests that current fourth amendment law, complete with the constant tinkering which it necessarily entails, should be abandoned altogether. Instead, …

Rejoinder: Truth, Justice, And The American Way--Or Professor Haddad's "Hard Choices", John M. Burkoff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

I frankly think that Professor Haddad's response to my article on pretext searches is first-rate. It is articulate; it is thoughtful and scholarly; it sharpens the issues and the analysis in this area; and, for the most part, I think his criticisms of various portions of my own work present my positions fairly and honestly. On the other hand, I think that Professor Haddad is dead wrong.

Pretextual Fourth Amendment Activity: Another Viewpoint, James B. Haddad

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Pretextual detentions, arrests, and searches pose knotty fourth amendment problems. With an air of plausibility, defense attorneys often accuse police of pretextual use of arrest warrants, search warrants, and various exceptions to the warrant requirement. Specifically, they contend that officers have utilized a particular fourth amendment doctrine to obtain certain evidence even though courts have not assigned as a reason for approving the doctrine the need to discover such evidence.

"Seizures" Typology: Classifying Detentions Of The Person To Resolve Warrant, Grounds, And Search Issues, Wayne R. Lafave

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This seizures typology constitutes a most important part of extant fourth amendment doctrine. The precision with which and perspective from which such classifications are drawn is obviously a matter of considerable interest to the police, who must in the first instance resolve these warrant, grounds, and search issues. It is also an appropriate subject of broader concern, as the shape of these categories has a critical bearing upon the effectiveness of our law enforcement processes and the extent of our protected liberty and privacy. The following comments are directed to this seizures typology.

The Pretext Search Doctrine: Now You See It, Now You Don't, John M. Burkoff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One can only hope, to put it bluntly, that the Supreme Court majority in Villamonte-Marquez did not mean what it seemed to have said. Indeed, there is some evidence that this is precisely the case. In the same Term Villamonte-Marquez was decided, the Court also decided Texas v. Brown. In Brown, the Supreme Court continued to recognize and respond to the problem of pretext searches. In other words, the Court still acts as if the pretext search doctrine remains vital, despite the apparent body blow delivered to it in Scott and Villamonte-Marquez. The remainder of this Article …

Probable Cause And Common Sense: A Reply To The Critics Of Illinois V. Gates, Joseph D. Grano

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this article reviews Gates's actual holding. Although one can view much of the Court's more interesting discussion of the two-pronged test as dicta, the majority and dissenters clearly did not regard it as such. The majority and dissenters disagreed, however, not only over the appropriate hearsay test but, more fundamentally, over the nature of probable cause itself. I will argue that one must resolve this more basic disagreement before properly addressing the hearsay issue.

Part II examines probable cause from an historical perspective. In this part, I attempt to demonstrate that both the English common law …

The Applicability Of Miranda Warnings To Non-Felony Offenses: Is The Proper Standard "Custodial Interrogation" Or "Severity Of The Offense"?, Kenneth W. Gaul

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that the proper standard for determining the necessity of the Miranda warnings for any offense is the existence of custodial interrogation. When interrogation for non-felony offenses takes place in a custodial atmosphere, Miranda warnings should be required, as they are for more serious offenses. Part I summarizes the two basic approaches taken by courts that have confronted the question of the applicability of the Miranda warnings to non-felony offenses. Part Ill argues that neither the rationale for the Miranda doctrine nor the roots of the fifth amendment support a distinction based on the severity of the offense …

The Fourth Amendment And The Control Of Police Discretion, William J. Mertens

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment protects the security of people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" in two distinct (if overlapping) ways. First, it requires a sufficiently weighty public interest before the government's agents are allowed to search or seize. Thus, for example, probable cause is required for arrest. Whatever uncertainty there may be in the phrase "probable cause" (and, for that matter, however indefinite the idea of "arrest" may have become), in this context, at least, the probable cause standard requires the demonstration of objective facts that point with some probability to the guilt for some particular offense of the person arrested. …

Introduction: Trends And Developments With Respect To That Amendment 'Central To Enjoyment Of Other Guarantees Of The Bill Of Rights', Yale Kamisar

Articles

Seventy years ago, in the famous Weeks case,' the Supreme Court evoked a storm of controversy by promulgating the federal exclusionary rule. When, a half-century later, in the landmark Mapp case,2 the Court extended the Weeks rule to state criminal proceedings, at least one experienced observer assumed that the controversy "today finds its end." 3 But as we all know now, Mapp only intensified the controversy. Indeed, in recent years spirited debates over proposals to modify the exclusionary rule or to scrap it entirely have filled the air - and the law reviews.'

Illinois V. Gates: Probable Cause Redefined, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 335 (1984), James W. Reilley, Barry E. Witlin, Christine P. Curran

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure - Vessels In Inland Waters Are Subject To Suspicionless Boarding - United States V. Villamonte-Marquez, Wallace R. Young Jr.

Campbell Law Review

The purpose of this Note is to examine the fourth amendment implications of the holding in Villamonte-Marquez. The Note will examine the Court's treatment of Section 1581(a) under which the search arose, analyze the judicial treatment of the decisions relied on by the Court and criticize the Court's treatment of the "reasonableness" of the governmental intrusion. The Note concludes that because private cabin-boaters have great interests against arbitrary intrusion by officials, cases such as Villamonte-Marquez should be scrutinized more carefully to preserve the protection of the fourth amendment.

Criminal Procedure - Fourth Amendment - In Determining Whether An Affidavit Based Upon An Informant's Tip Constitutes Probable Cause To Issue A Search Warrant, A Magistrate Is To Apply A Totality Of Circumstances Approach, Jamieson M. Schiff

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Illinois v. Gates1 was the most eagerly awaited constitutional-criminal procedure case of the 1982 Term. I think it fair to say, however, that it was awaited a good deal more eagerly by law enforcement officials and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement than by defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. As it turned out, of course, the Gates Court, to the disappointment of many, did not reach the question whether the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases should be modified so as not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment when …

"Knock, Knock" Is No Joke: Announcement Rules For Business Premises, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the courts should reject a home-business distinction in the application of announcement requirements. The Note concludes that announcement rules should apply whenever their underlying policies are served. This approach would apply announcement requirements to closed and occupied business premises.

Part I examines the arguments offered by some courts for a restrictive interpretation of announcement protections in the business context. Part I suggests that these arguments are unpersuasive and that the courts' application of announcement rules should correspond to the policies behind them. Part II argues that the policy justifications for announcement are served in the business …

Fourth Amendment Search And Seizure Requirements As Applied To Sniffing Investigations By Police Dogs: People V. Mayberry, Steven M. Bradford

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule—A Reply To Attorney General Smith, John Wesley Hall Jr.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Article establishes that the government has a right to search for and seize evidence of crime. Part II develops the corollary proposition that the fourth amendment does not protect the right to secrete evidence of crime. Part III explores the impact of the reasonable expectation of privacy concept on the innocent. Part IV evaluates consent searches and their effect on the innocent. Finally, Part V considers the exclusionary rule as a device for protecting the innocent.

Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White

Michigan Law Review

Most contemporary discussions of the "exclusionary rule" assume or assert that this "rule" is not part of the fourth amendment, nor required by its terms, but is rather a judicial "remedy" that was fashioned to protect those rights (against unreasonable search and seizure) that actually are granted by the fourth amendment. The protection is said to work by "deterring" official violations; this is, however, an odd use of the word, for the rule does not punish violations but merely deprives the government of some of the benefits that might ensue from them, namely the use in the criminal case of …

The Warren Court (Was It Really So Defense-Minded?), The Burger Court (Is It Really So Prosecution-Oriented?), And Police Investigatory Practices, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

In one sense the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure may be said to. have been launched by the 1956 case of Griffin v. Illinois (establishing an indigent criminal defendant's right to a free transcript on appeal, at least under certain circumstances) and to have been significantly advanced by two 1963 cases: Gideon v. Wainwright (entitling an indigent defendant to free counsel, at least in serious criminal cases) and Douglas v. California (requiring a state to provide an indigent with counsel on his first appeal from a criminal conviction). But these were not the cases that plunged the Warren …

Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

Richard Nixon's criticism of the Warren Court during the 1968 presidential campaign centered largely on the Court's handling of cases involving criminal rights. According to candidate Nixon, the Court had gone much too far. It had twisted the Constitution to serve its own purposes, created a maze of legal technicalities that worked only to frustrate legitimate law enforcement efforts, and so weakened "the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country" as to be largely responsible for the sharp rise in crime that had occurred in the sixties. What had to be done, continued Nixon, was to appoint …

Criminal Procedure - Fourth Amendment - Search And Seizure - Grand Jury Request For Hair Samples Is Not Subject To Constraints Of The Fourth Amendment, Collins J. Seitz Jr.

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

[U]ntil the [exclusionary rule] rests on a principled basis rather than an empirical proposition, [the rule] will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium. Mapp v. Ohio, which overruled the then twelve-year-old Wolf case and imposed the fourth amendment exclusionary rule (the Weeks doctrine) on the states as a matter of fourteenth amendment due process, seemed to mark the end of an era. Concurring in Mapp, Justice Douglas recalled that Wolf had evoked "a storm of constitutional controversy which only today finds its end."' But in the two decades since Justice Douglas made this observation, the storm of controversy has …