Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Criminal Law And Procedure - Electronic Eavesdropping - Katz V. United States, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967)

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Extent Of The Exclusionary Rule, Jon W. Bruce

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - "Fruit Of Poisonous Tree" Doctrine - Jacobs V. Warden, 367 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1966), Gilbert A. Bartlett

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Search Warrants - Health And Safety Inspections, John M. Campfield

Duquesne Law Review

Health and Safety Inspections- The Fourth Amendment guarantees that a person may not be convicted for refusing to consent to a health or safety inspection of his residence or place of business to be made without a search warrant.

Camara v. Municipal Court, 87 S. Ct. 1727 (1967). See v. City of Seattle, 87 S. Ct. 1737 (1967).

Family Law—Application Of The Rules Against Search And Seizure To Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Alan Eber

Buffalo Law Review

Matter of Williams, 49 Misc. 2d 154, 267 N.Y.S.2d 91 (Ulster County Family Ct. 1966).

Constitutional Law - Admissibility Of Evidence - Reasonable Search And Seizure. Hawley V. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 479 (1965), Robert E. Scott

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A New Constitutional Limit For Electronic Surveillance Cases, Allan Zaleski

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - Wife's Consent To Search And Seizure Of Husband's Property Held Not Sufficient To Waive Constitutional Rights Protecting Husband. State V. Hall, 142 S.E.2d 177 (1965)., R. H. Kraftson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Ex Parte Order May Not Serve The Function Of A Search Warrant Under The Fourth Amendment To Authorize A Physical Intrusion In Connection With A "Search" For Conversations--People V. Grossman, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

There was probable cause to believe that defendant Scandifia was implicated in a larceny of jewelry by false pretenses. Pursuant to section 813-a of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court in New York County issued an ex parte order authorizing the installation of an eavesdropping device in a service station owned by Scandifia. Shortly thereafter, police broke into the station's private office and installed a microphone. Conversations were overheard which indicated that defendant Grossman had in his possession two pistols received from Scandifia. An affidavit setting forth these conversations supplied the sole probable cause for a …

Privacy In Connecticut, Arthur E. Sutherland

Michigan Law Review

Occasionally a judgment of our Supreme Court, delivered in a superficially petty case, suddenly before our startled eyes displays fundamentals of our constitutional theory. Thus, in Griswold v. Connecticut, holding unconstitutional an 1879 Connecticut statute forbidding all persons to use contraceptive devices, the Court found it necessary to discover a "right of privacy" latent in the Bill of Rights and incorporated into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The outcome of the case is satisfying; all nine Justices joined in saying, in one way or another, that Connecticut's statute was nonsense. I am happy to see this …

Constitutional Law--Prospective Limitation Of Mapp V. Ohio, Menis Elbert Ketchum Ii

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Griswold Penumbra: Constitutional Charter For An Expanded Law Of Privacy?, Robert G. Dixon Jr.

Michigan Law Review

The comments that follow are divided into a brief review, for purposes of perspective, of the elusive nature of "privacy" as developed in American law to date, and an attempted rigorous analysis of the privacy aspects of Griswold. A final section suggests that effectuation of the new constitutional right of marital privacy necessarily or derivatively implies a corollary right of access to birth control information and devices-a right which should have been more clearly articulated by the Court.

Nine Justices In Search Of A Doctrine, Thomas I. Emerson

Michigan Law Review

To the ordinary layman, Griswold v. Connecticut seemed easy. But to the lawyer it was somewhat more difficult. The lawyer's problem with the case was that the issues did not readily fit into any existing legal pigeonhole. Actually, there were five possibilities. The case could have been dealt with under the equal protection clause, the first amendment, substantive due process, the right of privacy, or, in extremis, the ninth amendment. In order to strike down the statute under any of these doctrines, however, the Court would be forced to enter uncharted waters. Whatever course the Court took, its action …

Penumbras, Peripheries, Emanations, Things Fundamental And Things Forgotten: The Griswold Case, Paul G. Kauper

Michigan Law Review

The varying theories followed in the several opinions in the Griswold case can be fully understood and appreciated only in the context of the tortuous but fascinating history of the judicial interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.

The Right Of Privacy: Emanations And Intimations, Robert B. Mckay

Michigan Law Review

When Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote in 1890 of "The Right to Privacy," they sought a means of protecting against unwelcome newspaper attention to social activities in the Warren household. Addressing their argument to the private law of torts, they presumably did not anticipate constitutional protection for other rights under the claim of privacy. Nevertheless, seventy· five years later that concept, now called the "right of privacy," was used by the Supreme Court of the United States in Griswold v. Connecticut to describe a constitutional right. Some members of the Court said the new right was within the "penumbra" …

Evidence Illegally Seized By Private Persons Excluded From Criminal Prosecution--People V. Mccomb, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

At common law, illegally seized evidence was admissible on the theory that the nature of the seizure did not necessarily affect the probative value of the evidence. However, in 1914 the United States Supreme Court, in order to protect the fourth amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, adopted a rule excluding from federal courts evidence illegally seized by federal officials. In 1961, the scope of this rule was extended by Mapp v. Ohio, which held that all evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in state courts. However, the Mapp doctrine applies only …

Commissioner May Examine Taxpayer's Records For Years Barred By Statute Of Limitations Without Proving Reasonable Suspicion Of Fraud--United States V. Powell, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has power to summon witnesses and to examine records in order to ascertain the correctness of a taxpayer's return. If a summons is not obeyed or if the records sought are not produced, the Commissioner may seek enforcement by applying to the proper federal district court. Although the Commissioner's investigative powers are broad, they are not unlimited. In the absence of fraud, he must act within the confines of a three-year statute of limitations. In addition, the Code makes it abundantly clear that taxpayers may not be subjected to unnecessary examinations or investigations and that …

Parolee Not Protected Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures By His Parole Officer, Roger B. Dworkin

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Federal Civil Procedure-Existence Of Federal Cause Of Action For Abuse Of Federal Process, Laurence D. Connor

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner was served with a subpoena ordering him to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He subsequently brought an action in federal district court asking for damages and injunctive relief and praying that the subpoena be declared void and of no effect. He alleged it had been signed in blank by the Committee chairman and that respondent, an investigator for the Committee without delegated subpoena power, had filled in petitioner's name without authorization and caused it to be served on him at his place of employment. Petitioner also alleged that respondent intended to subject him to public shame …

Constitutional Law-Search And Seizure-Retrospective Application Of Mapp V. Ohio, Timothy D. Wittlinger

Michigan Law Review

On February 15, 1960, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction for simple burglary. The conviction was obtained through the use of evidence unlawfully seized from petitioner in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. In December 1961 the District Court for the Parish of West Feliciana denied petitioner's writ of habeas corpus filed after the Supreme Court decision of Mapp v. Ohio, which forbade introduction at state trials of evidence seized by state officers in violation of the fourth amendment. The denial of the writ was affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and certiorari was …

Lawful Objects Of Search And Seizure, Joseph Wool

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law-Self-Incrimination- Denial Of Privilege To General Partner Holding Subpoenaed Books And Records Of Limited Partnership, Roger L. Mcmanus

Michigan Law Review

A special agent of the Internal Revenue Service sought enumerated books and records of four New York limited partnerships in connection with petitioner's tax liability for prior years. A subpoena duces tecum was issued directing petitioner to produce the records, which were in his possession as general partner. Petitioner, his son, and his son-in-law were the general partners of each limited partnership involved, with limited partners ranging from twenty-five to 119 in number and capitalization from 225,000 dollars to 2,740,000 dollars. The partnerships, together with a management company, were housed in a single office with a staff of one secretary. …

Search And Seizure Incidental To A Lawful Arrest, Gregory U. Evans

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Reaction To Evidence Obtained By Harsh And Unusual Means, Gene Haislip

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Betts V. Brady Twenty Years Later: The Right To Counself And Due Process Values, Yale Kamisar

Michigan Law Review

I am quite distressed by talk that the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio "suggests by analogy" that the Court may now overrule Betts v. Brady. For whether one talks about the fourth or the sixth amendment, there is much to be said for Justice Harlan's dissenting views in Mapp. "[W]hatever configurations ... have been developed in the particularizing federal precedents" should not be "deemed a part of 'ordered liberty,' and as such ... enforceable against the States .... [W]e would not be true to the Fourteenth Amendment were we merely to stretch the general principle [ of …

The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb

Michigan Law Review

Few legal devices find conflict within the lines of our Constitution with the ubiquity of the contempt power. These conflicts involve issues concerning the governmental power structure such as the separation of powers and the delicate balancing of federal-state relations. In addition, there are civil rights issues attributable to the conflict between the use of the contempt power and such vital procedural protections as the right to trial by jury, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and indictment-to name only the most recurrent and controversial examples. Aside from these problems, there are other civil liberties issues, such as those involving freedom …

Comments, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law--Unlawful Search And Seizure--Evidence Obtained Thereby Not Admissible In State Courts, John Templeton Kay Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure - Search And Seizure - Federal Court Injunction Against State Officer To Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence In State Court, S. Anthony Benton

Michigan Law Review

Federal customs enforcement officers suspected plaintiff of theft from a waterfront pier. In the course of their investigation they searched plaintiff's home without a search warrant and detained plaintiff for questioning without first bringing him before a federal commissioner. Both acts violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant, a state officer, although not a participant in the search, was present during the illegal detention at the invitation of the federal officers. Plaintiff obtained an order in federal district court enjoining defendant from giving any testimony or producing any evidence in state criminal proceedings against him with respect to property …

Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - Evidence Obtained By Unreasonable Search And Seizure Is Constitutionally Inadmissible In State Criminal Prosecutions, John B. Lieberman Iii

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.