Evidence Commons^™

United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ross vastly simplified the process of searching closed containers found in an automobile during a lawful Carroll search yet, at the same time, placed in question the importance of the search warrant in the scheme of fourth amendment jurisprudence by equating the policeman's determination of probable cause with that of the magistrate.

On The 'Considered Analysis' Of Collecting Dna Before Conviction, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

For nearly a decade, DNA-on-arrest laws eluded scrutiny in the courts. For another five years, they withstood a gathering storm of constitutional challenges. In Maryland v. King, however, Maryland's highest court reasoned that usually fingerprints provide everything police need to establish the true identity of an individual before trial and that the state's interest in finding the perpetrators of crimes by trawling databases of DNA profiles is too "generalized" to support "a warrantless, suspicionless search." The U.S. Supreme Court reacted forcefully. Chief Justice Roberts stayed the Maryland judgment, writing that "given the considered analysis of courts on the other side …

Maryland V. King: Per Se Unreasonableness, The Golden Rule, And The Future Of Dna Databases, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court applied a balancing test to uphold a Maryland statute mandating preconviction collection and analysis of DNA from individuals charged with certain crimes. The DNA profiles are limited to an inherited set of DNA sequences that are not known to be functional and that are tokens of individual identity. This invited online essay examines two aspects of an article on the case by Professor Erin Murphy. I question the claim that the case is pivotal in a conceivable abandonment of the per se rule that warrantless, suspicionless searches are unconstitutional unless they fall …

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eavesdropping Under New York And Federal Law: How New York Is Departing From Long-Standing Interpretations Mirroring Federal Law - People V. Rabb, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vehicle Checkpoints: The Ever-Expanding Array Of Purposes For Which A Vehicle May Be Stopped - People V. Gavenda, Jan Lucas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Roving Border Patrols In New York – Sometimes The Drug Smuggler Does Not Get Convicted: The Legal Limitations Regarding Vehicle Stops And Consent Searches Based Upon Reasonable Suspicion - People V. Banisadr, Robert Mitchell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Do Automobile Passengers Have A Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy? An Analysis Of Reasonable Expectation Under The Fourth Amendment - People V. Howard, Lisa Belrose

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Seal On White-Collar Criminal Search Warrant Materials , David Horan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wilson V. Layne: Increasing The Scope Of The Fourth Amendment Right To Privacy, Ashlea Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: New York Vs. Federal Approach - People V. Keita, Tillie S. Mirman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Inevitable Discovery Rule - Justice Served Or Justice Thwarted? - People V. Pinckney, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

It’S In The Bag: Voluntariness, Scope, And The Authority To Grant Consent - United States V. Harris, Daniel Fier

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unraveling The Exclusionary Rule: From Leon To Herring To Robinson - And Back?, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule began to unravel in United States v. Leon. The facts were compelling. Why exclude reliable physical evidence from trial when it was not the constable who blundered, but “a detached and neutral magistrate” who misjudged whether probable cause was present and issued a search warrant? Later cases applied the exception for “good faith” mistakes to a police officer who, pursuing a grudge against a suspect, arrested and searched him and his truck on the basis of a false and negligent report from a clerk in another county of an outstand­ing arrest warrant. The California Supreme …

The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins

University of Richmond Law Review

In this essay, I contend that when evaluating the constitutionality of enhanced surveillance devices, the existing test for assessing the occurrence of a Fourth Amendment search should be modified. Specifically, I suggest that intrusiveness should be unambiguously adopted by the Court as the benchmark for assessing and defining the existence of a search under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, intrusiveness should be clearly defined to require an examination of two factors: the functionality of a challenged form of surveillance and the potential for disclosure created by the device.

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

Nevada Law Journal

The central thesis of this essay is that, consistent with the “art of overruling,” the Court could have limited Mapp, for example, by extending the good-faith reasonable mistake rationale that animates cases like United States v. Leon. As developed below, the facts of Herring are quite similar to the facts of other cases where the Court upheld police conduct that, although erroneous, seemed reasonable; accordingly, excluding the illegally obtained evidence had no value as a deterrent of future conduct in light of the reasonableness of the police officer's mistake. However, Herring goes much further and points towards a much greater …

Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule is back under the judicial magnifying glass. Recent opinions, most notably by Justice Scalia, have sparked speculation that the Roberts Court is inclined to overrule Mapp v. Ohio and send Fourth Amendment disputes back to the realm of civil suits and police disciplinary actions. As the Court's rulings have made clear, any reevaluation of the exclusionary rule's future will be conducted under the now familiar rubric of whether the rule's "benefit" of deterring police misbehavior outweighs the "cost" of lost evidence and convictions.

This essay argues that if any such reevaluation does occur, the Court must take …

Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule, which bars from admission evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, is a bedrock of American law. It is highly controversial, but there seems to be no equally effective way to protect citizens' rights. This paper proposes that an admissibility standard be adopted that is in keeping with virtually every jurisdiction around the world other than the United States. Thus, before ruling evidence inadmissible, the court would consider the level of the constitutional violation, the seriousness of the crime, whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the …

The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part …

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.

The 'High Crime Area' Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis, Andrew Ferguson, Damien Bernache

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This article proposes a legal framework to analyze the "high crime area" concept in Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion challenges.Under existing Supreme Court precedent, reviewing courts are allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). However, the Supreme Court has never defined a "high crime area" and lower courts have not reached consensus on a definition. There is no agreement on what a "high-crime area" is, whether it has geographic boundaries, whether it changes over time, whether it …

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hudson And Samson: The Roberts Court Confronts Privacy, Dignity, And The Fourth Amendment, John D. Castiglione

ExpressO

This article critically analyzes Samson v. California and Hudson v. Michigan, which were the Roberts Court's first major Fourth Amendment decisions. In Samson, the Court upheld a California law allowing government officials to search parolees without any suspicion of wrongdoing. In Hudson, to the surprise of almost every observer, the Court held that knock-and-announce violations do not carry with them a remedy of exclusion. What was most notable about Hudson was not only that it rejected what every state and every federal court, save one, believed to be the proper remedy for knock-and-announce violations, but that it called into question …

Using Suppression Hearing Testimony To Prove Good Faith Under United States V. Leon, John E. Taylor

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—The Fourth Amendment Challenge To Dna Sampling Of Arrestees Pursuant To The Justice For All Act Of 2004: A Proposed Modification To The Traditional Fourth Amendment Test Of Reasonableness, Kimberly A. Polanco

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting The Citizen Whilst He Is Quiet: Suspicionless Searches, Special Needs And General Warrants, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dna Identification Databases: Legality, Legitimacy, And The Case For Population-Wide Coverage, David H. Kaye, Michael E. Smith

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past decade, law enforcement authorities have amassed huge collections of DNA samples and the identifying profiles derived from them. Large DNA databanks routinely help to identify the guilty and to exonerate the innocent, but as the databanks grow, so do fears about civil liberties. Perhaps the most controversial policy issue in the creation of these databases is the question of coverage: Whose DNA profiles should be stored in them? The possibilities extend from convicted violent sex offenders to all convicted felons, to everyone arrested, to the entire population. This Article questions the rationales for drawing the line at …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.