Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (190)
- University of Michigan Law School (21)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (16)
- UIC School of Law (11)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (4)
-
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (3)
- Brooklyn Law School (2)
- Duke Law (2)
- Fordham Law School (2)
- Mississippi Christian University School of Law (2)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- Pepperdine University (2)
- St. Mary's University (2)
- The University of Akron (2)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (2)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Barry University School of Law (1)
- Boston University School of Law (1)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Georgia State University College of Law (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- University of Baltimore Law (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Dar es Salaam (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (1)
- University of Richmond (1)
- University of the District of Columbia School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Fourth Amendment (27)
- Police (19)
- Constitution (13)
- Exclusionary rule (12)
- Fourth amendment (12)
-
- Law (12)
- Privacy (12)
- Fifth Amendment (11)
- Supreme Court (11)
- United States Supreme Court (11)
- Jurisprudence (10)
- Miranda v. Arizona (10)
- Probable cause (10)
- Dickerson v. United States (8)
- Search and seizure (8)
- Searches (8)
- Law enforcement (7)
- SFFA (7)
- Warrant (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- Congress (6)
- ESG (6)
- Technology (6)
- Warren Court (6)
- Constitutional law (5)
- Court of Appeals (5)
- Criminal procedure (5)
- Defendant (5)
- Discrimination (5)
- Diversity (5)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (190)
- Touro Law Review (16)
- Michigan Law Review (13)
- UIC Law Review (11)
- Faculty Scholarship (5)
-
- Northwestern University Law Review (4)
- Indiana Law Journal (3)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (3)
- Akron Law Review (2)
- Arkansas Law Review (2)
- Articles (2)
- Book Chapters (2)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (2)
- Fordham Urban Law Journal (2)
- Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary (2)
- MC Law Review (2)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (2)
- University of Cincinnati Law Review (2)
- BYU Law Review (1)
- Barry Law Review (1)
- Brooklyn Law Review (1)
- Cleveland State Law Review (1)
- Faculty Publications By Year (1)
- Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (1)
- Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (1)
- Publications (1)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (1)
- St. John's Law Review (1)
- UMKC Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 241 - 270 of 281
Full-Text Articles in Fourth Amendment
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
Search And Seizure, Court Of Appeals, People V. Quackenbush
Search And Seizure, Court Of Appeals, People V. Quackenbush
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
United States, Puerto Rico, And The Territorial Incorporation Doctrine: Reaching A Century Of Constitutional Authoritarianism, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 55 (1997), Gabriel A. Terrasa
United States, Puerto Rico, And The Territorial Incorporation Doctrine: Reaching A Century Of Constitutional Authoritarianism, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 55 (1997), Gabriel A. Terrasa
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Feeling Violated: Seventh Circuit Puts The Squeeze On Fourth Amendment Rights Of Bus Travelers, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 245 (1997), Andrew J. Purcell
Feeling Violated: Seventh Circuit Puts The Squeeze On Fourth Amendment Rights Of Bus Travelers, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 245 (1997), Andrew J. Purcell
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fourth Amendment Accommodations: (Un)Compelling Public Needs, Balancing Acts, And The Fiction Of Consent, Guy-Uriel Charles
Fourth Amendment Accommodations: (Un)Compelling Public Needs, Balancing Acts, And The Fiction Of Consent, Guy-Uriel Charles
Faculty Scholarship
The problems of public housing-including crime, drugs, and gun violence- have received an enormous amount of national attention. Much attention has also focused on warrantless searches and consent searches as solutions to these problems. This Note addresses the constitutionality of these proposals and asserts that if the Supreme Court's current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is taken to its logical extremes, warrantless searches in public housing can be found constitutional. The author argues, however, that such an interpretation fails to strike the proper balance between public need and privacy in the public housing context. The Note concludes by proposing alternative consent-based regimes …
Search And Seizure, Court Of Appeals, People V. Batista
Search And Seizure, Court Of Appeals, People V. Batista
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Computers, Urinals, And The Fourth Amendment: Confessions Of A Patron Saint, Wayne R. Lafave
Computers, Urinals, And The Fourth Amendment: Confessions Of A Patron Saint, Wayne R. Lafave
Michigan Law Review
At least the title indicates that the article is somehow concerned with "the Fourth Amendment," though for anyone who knows me or is at all familiar with my work, that piece of information hardly would come as a revelation. The fact of the matter is that I almost always write about the Fourth Amendment; I am in an academic rut so deep as to deserve recognition in the Guinness Book World of Records. Search and seizure has been my cheval de bataille during my entire time as a law professor and even when I was a mere law student. …
Counter-Revolution In Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers, Carol S. Steiker
Counter-Revolution In Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers, Carol S. Steiker
Michigan Law Review
For the purposes of my argument, I adapt Professor Meir Dan-Cohen's distinction (which he in turn borrowed from Jeremy Bentham) between "conduct" rules and "decision" rules. Bentham and Dan-Cohen make this distinction in the context of substantive criminal law; for their purposes, "conduct" rules are addressed to the general public in order to guide its behavior (for example, "Let no person steal") and "decision" rules are addressed to public officials in order to guide their decisionmaking about the consequences of violating conduct rules (for example, "Let the judge cause whoever is convicted of stealing to be hanged"). But as any …
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
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
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.
James V. Illinois: Wither The Exclusionary Rule - Not Quite Yet, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 493 (1991), David H. Norris
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
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.
Beyond The Warren Court And Its Conservative Critics: Toward A Unified Theory Of Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Donald A. Dripps
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 …
Using The Constitution: Separation Of Powers And Damages For Constitutional Violations, James A. Thomson
Using The Constitution: Separation Of Powers And Damages For Constitutional Violations, James A. Thomson
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas
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.
Fourth Amendment, William E. Hellerstein
Police Trespass And The Fourth Amendment: A Wall In Need Of Mending, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 795 (1989), Clifford S. Fishman
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.
Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Honorable George C. Pratt, Leon Friedman
Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Honorable George C. Pratt, Leon Friedman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.