Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (187)
- University of Michigan Law School (29)
- University of Nebraska - Lincoln (16)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (11)
- UIC School of Law (11)
-
- William & Mary Law School (10)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (6)
- Cornell University Law School (4)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (4)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (3)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (3)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (3)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (3)
- University of San Diego (3)
- University of the District of Columbia School of Law (3)
- City University of New York (CUNY) (2)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (2)
- The University of Akron (2)
- University at Albany, State University of New York (2)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (2)
- University of Maine School of Law (2)
- University of Washington School of Law (2)
- West Virginia University (2)
- Bridgewater College (1)
- Claremont Colleges (1)
- Duke Law (1)
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (1)
- Emory University School of Law (1)
- Florida A&M University College of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Fourteenth Amendment (19)
- Fourth Amendment (17)
- Law (16)
- Fifth Amendment (15)
- Fourth amendment (14)
-
- Privacy (13)
- Exclusionary rule (12)
- Fourteenth amendment (12)
- Search and seizure (12)
- Constitution (11)
- Due process (11)
- Supreme Court (11)
- Miranda v. Arizona (10)
- United States Constitution 14th Amendment (10)
- United States Constitution 4th Amendment (10)
- Bill of Rights (9)
- Dickerson v. United States (9)
- Due Process Clause (9)
- Due Process (8)
- Equal Protection Clause (8)
- Police (8)
- Affirmative Action (7)
- Probable cause (7)
- Race (7)
- SFFA (7)
- Diversity (6)
- ESG (6)
- Equal protection (6)
- Evidence (6)
- Excessive force (6)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (187)
- Michigan Law Review (24)
- Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice (16)
- UIC Law Review (11)
- Touro Law Review (10)
-
- Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic (5)
- Articles (4)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (4)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (3)
- Faculty Publications (3)
- Maryland Law Review (3)
- Other Faculty Publications (3)
- University of Cincinnati Law Review (3)
- University of the District of Columbia Law Review (3)
- Akron Law Review (2)
- Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Maine Law Review (2)
- Psychology Faculty Scholarship (2)
- San Diego Law Review (2)
- Scholarly Articles (2)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (2)
- West Virginia Law Review (2)
- Arkansas Law Review (1)
- Articles & Chapters (1)
- Books (1)
- CMC Senior Theses (1)
- Capital Defense Journal (1)
- Capstones (1)
- Cardozo Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 271 - 300 of 340
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Recent Developments In The Use Of Excessive Force By Law Enforcement, Karen M. Blum, Jack Ryan
Recent Developments In The Use Of Excessive Force By Law Enforcement, Karen M. Blum, Jack Ryan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
You Have The Right To Be Free From Unwanted Bodily Intrusion--Unless Of Course There Is A Court Order, Tara Laterza
You Have The Right To Be Free From Unwanted Bodily Intrusion--Unless Of Course There Is A Court Order, Tara Laterza
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Thomas W. Ports Jr.
Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Thomas W. Ports Jr.
Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic
No abstract provided.
Who Should Be The ‘Decider’ On Keeping Our Secrets?, Stephen Henderson
Who Should Be The ‘Decider’ On Keeping Our Secrets?, Stephen Henderson
Other Faculty Publications
An invited essay for Constitution Day, also available here: http://blogs.law.widener.edu/constitution2013/2013-essay-authors/stephen-henderson/It addresses the national security surveillance disclosed by Edward Snowden and others, and asks whether a fundamental shift would be prudent in the era of Big Data.
Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R.W. Toepp
Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R.W. Toepp
Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic
No abstract provided.
Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R.W. Toepp
Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R.W. Toepp
Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic
No abstract provided.
Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii
Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii
Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic
No abstract provided.
Florence V. Board Of Chosen Freeholders: Maintaining Jail Security While Stripping Detainees Of Their Constitutional Rights, Nina Gleiberman
Florence V. Board Of Chosen Freeholders: Maintaining Jail Security While Stripping Detainees Of Their Constitutional Rights, Nina Gleiberman
Maryland Law Review Online
No abstract provided.
The Mercenary Gap: How To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of American Contractors In The Age Of The Private Military Firm, 46 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1121 (2013), John Sviokla
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii
Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii
Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic
No abstract provided.
Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw
Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw
Touro Law Review
The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"
Gps Monitoring May Cause Orwell To Turn In His Grave, But Will It Escape Constitutional Challenges? A Look At Gps Monitoring Of Domestic Violence Offenders In Illinois, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 845 (2010), Mary Ann Scholl
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mapp V. Ohio Revisited: A Law Clerk's Diary, Polly J. Price
Mapp V. Ohio Revisited: A Law Clerk's Diary, Polly J. Price
Faculty Articles
The 1960 Supreme Court Term laid the groundwork for the subsequent revolution in the relationship between state and federal law accomplished by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The "most famous search and seizure case in American history" - Mapp v. Ohio - would be decided that Term. Mapp held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" required the exclusion of evidence found through an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the states a rule that had previously applied only to federal law enforcement. Mapp became a pivotal chapter in the …
Roth At Fifty: Reconsidering The Common Law Antecedents Of American Obscenity Doctrine, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 393 (2008), James R. Alexander
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.
Hitching A Ride: Every Time You Take A Drive, The Government Is Riding With You, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1499 (2006), Benjamin Burnham
Hitching A Ride: Every Time You Take A Drive, The Government Is Riding With You, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1499 (2006), Benjamin Burnham
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Data Matching, Data Mining, And Due Process, Daniel J. Steinbock
Data Matching, Data Mining, And Due Process, Daniel J. Steinbock
Georgia Law Review
The Article concerns the governmental use of computerized data matching (comparison of records) and data mining (profiling),which increasingly are aimed at locating potential terrorists. The most striking aspect of virtually all anti-terrorist data matching and data mining decisions is the total absence of even the most rudimentary procedures for notice, hearing, or other opportunities for meaningful participation before, or even after, the deprivation is imposed. The Article evaluates under Fourth Amendment and due process standards a variety of law enforcement activities data matching or data mining might instigate. After reviewing these activities' potential effects on private, governmental, and accuracy interests, …
Righteous Shooting, Unreasonable Seizure? The Relevance Of An Officer's Pre-Seizure Conduct In An Excessive Force Claim, Aaron Kimber
Righteous Shooting, Unreasonable Seizure? The Relevance Of An Officer's Pre-Seizure Conduct In An Excessive Force Claim, Aaron Kimber
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Profiling With Apologies, Sherry F. Colb
Profiling With Apologies, Sherry F. Colb
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
When Constitutional Worlds Colide: Resurrecting The Framers' Bill Of Rights And Criminal Procedure, George C. Thomas Iii
When Constitutional Worlds Colide: Resurrecting The Framers' Bill Of Rights And Criminal Procedure, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has been interpreting the Bill of Rights. Imagine Chief Justice John Marshall sitting in the dim, narrow Supreme Court chambers, pondering the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in United States v. Burr. Aaron Burr was charged with treason for planning to invade the Louisiana Territory and create a separate government there. To help prepare his defense, Burr wanted to see a letter written by General James Wilkinson to President Jefferson. In ruling on Burr's motion to compel disclosure, Marshall departed from the literal language of the Sixth Amendment - …
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Michigan Law Review
The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
Michigan Law Review
Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Michigan Law Review
Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Michigan Law Review
Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …
Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb
Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.