Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Evaluating The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Problem Of Police Compliance With The Law, William C. Heffernan, Richard W. Lovely

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this article reviews background matters bearing on our research - in particular, we discuss the Court's framework for analyzing exclusion as a deterrent safeguard, the research questions that need to be raised within that framework, and the research strategy we adopted in light of the Court's approach to exclusion. Part II analyzes our findings on police knowledge of the rules of search and seizure. Part III analyzes our findings on officers' willingness to obey the law. Part IV evaluates our findings in light of policy questions concerning the exclusionary rule. We consider whether the Court should retain …

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Third-Part Consent: Rethinking Police Conduct And The Fourth Amendment, Gregory S. Fisher

Washington Law Review

Two recent decisions offer different approaches for assessing police conduct in third-party consent cases. In Illinois v. Rodriguez the United States Supreme Court held that police may rely on third parties' apparent authority to consent to a search so long as police reasonably believe in third parties' authority. In State v. Leach, the Supreme Court of Washington held that police cannot rely on third parties' consent when defendants are present and able to object, even if defendants did not object to the search. This Comment argues that courts should focus on police conduct, rather than on defendants' presence or on …

The Exigent Circumstances Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Controlling Discretion By Administrative Regulations: The Use, Misuse, And The Nonuse Of Police Rules And Policies In Fourth Amendment Adjudication, Wayne R. Lafave

Michigan Law Review

In assaying fourth amendment jurisprudence, it is useful to take into account available knowledge regarding the actual search and seizure practices of the police. Especially helpful is the perspective afforded by the American Bar Foundation's Survey of the Administration of Criminal Justice in the United States, which ranks as the preeminent empirical study of law enforcement procedures in this country. Despite the fact - or, more likely, because of the fact that the ABF Survey was published over twenty years ago, certain insights from that study highlight some recent and significant changes in this corpus juris inconstans .

Clearly "the …

Errors In Good Faith: The Leon Exception Six Years Later, David Clark Esseks

Michigan Law Review

Given this vast literature on the good faith exception, little room appears to exist for additional commentary on the propriety of the decision, its theoretical weaknesses or strengths, or what further changes in constitutional criminal procedure it forebodes. This Note will not add to the many voices complaining of the Court's misconstrual of the grounding of the exclusionary rule, nor of its crabbed notion of deterrence. Instead, it accepts, arguendo, the propriety of the exception and its underlying purpose, and then examines the six-year experience with the revised rule. The proliferation of reported applications of the good faith exception …

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.

Restrictions On The State's Use Of Mental Health Experts In Capital Trials, W. Lawrence Fitch

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

Search And Seizure: It's Time The Court Shed Some Light On The Use Of Ultraviolet Lamps, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 877 (1989), M. Jeffrey Tucker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Liability For Creating The Need To Use Deadly Force In Self-Defense, Frank G. Zarb Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Police officers are granted wide discretion in the use of their firearms. Allowing officers some discretion is unavoidable, because they must often make difficult decisions in the face of rapidly changing circumstances. Officers, however, may abuse this discretion and cause injury or death unnecessarily. In the face of this danger of abuse by officers, suspects are, in many states, prohibited from defending themselves. While it is better to have a court decide when a police officer has abused his discretion than to allow the suspect to make that decision at the moment of arrest, it is not clear what standards …

Warrantless Investigative Seizures Of Real And Tangible Personal Property By Law Enforcement Officers, Steven A.G. Davison

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Administrative Searches For Evidence Of Crime: The Impact Of New York V. Burger, Perry S. Reich

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Griffin V. Wisconsin Warrantless Probation Searches - Do The State's Needs Warrant Such Strict Measures, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 921 (1988), William Blake Weiler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Linguistic Analysis Of The Meanings Of "Search" In The Fourth Amendment: A Search For Common Sense, Clark D. Cunningham

Faculty Publications By Year

This article offers a new technique for analyzing and evaluating competing interpretations of a legal text and applies that technique to one of the most debated questions of modern constitutional interpretation: the meaning of "searches" in the first clause of the fourth amendment. This Technique is called the "common sense" approach because it begins with a semantic analysis of the text in terms of the sense that the key words have in everyday speech. Such analysis reveals a complex of interlocked concepts that underlies the ability of speakers to recognize meaningful uses of these words. The common sense approach then …

'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It is not . . . easy to see what the shock-the-conscience test adds, or should be allowed to add, to the deterrent function of exclusionary rules. Where no deterrence of unconstitutional police behavior is possible, a decision to exclude probative evidence with the result that a criminal goes free to prey upon the public should shock the judicial conscience even more than admitting the evidence. So spoke Judge Robert H. Bork, concurring in a ruling that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches conducted exclusively by foreign officials. A short time thereafter, when an interviewer …

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

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law-Fourth Amendment-Use Of Deadly Force To Seize Fleeing Felony Suspects (Tennessee V. Garner), Georgia Mcmillen

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.

Arrest, James Boyd White

Book Chapters

The constitutional law of arrest governs every occasion on which a government officer interferes with an individual’s freedom, from full-scale custodial arrests at one end of the spectrum to momentary detentions at the other. Its essential principle is that a court, not a police officer or other executive official, shall ultimately decide whether a particular interference with the liberty of an individual is justified. The court may make this judgment either before an arrest, when the police seek a judicial warrant authorizing it, or shortly after an arrest without a warrant, in a hearing held expressly for that purpose. The …

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. …