Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (38)
- Criminal Procedure (28)
- Supreme Court of the United States (22)
- Criminal Law (17)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (17)
-
- Fourteenth Amendment (15)
- Courts (11)
- Jurisprudence (11)
- State and Local Government Law (8)
- Evidence (7)
- Judges (7)
- Legislation (7)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Law and Society (5)
- Legal History (5)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (4)
- First Amendment (4)
- Law and Politics (3)
- Law and Race (3)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (3)
- Legal Writing and Research (3)
- Litigation (3)
- Rule of Law (3)
- Administrative Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Common Law (2)
- Juvenile Law (2)
- Legal Education (2)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (18)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (6)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (3)
- Cornell University Law School (2)
- Seattle University School of Law (2)
-
- The University of Akron (2)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (2)
- University of Richmond (2)
- Brooklyn Law School (1)
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (1)
- Emory University School of Law (1)
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Fordham Law School (1)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (1)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (1)
- University of Washington School of Law (1)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (14)
- Touro Law Review (6)
- Articles (3)
- Faculty Scholarship (3)
- Akron Law Review (2)
-
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (2)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (2)
- Seattle University Law Review (2)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (2)
- University of Richmond Law Review (2)
- Brooklyn Law Review (1)
- Faculty Articles (1)
- Florida State University Law Review (1)
- Indiana Law Journal (1)
- Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (1)
- Maryland Law Review (1)
- St. John's Law Review (1)
- Supreme Court Case Files (1)
- UF Law Faculty Publications (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (1)
- Washington Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 31 - 50 of 50
Full-Text Articles in Fourth Amendment
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 …
Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, David H. Kaye, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, David H. Kaye, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Faculty Scholarship
DNA typing has had a major impact on the criminal justice system. There are hundreds of opinions and thousands of cases dealing with DNA evidence. Yet, at virtually every stage of the process, there are important issues that are just emerging or that have been neglected.
At the investigative stage, courts have barely begun to focus on the legal limitations on the power of the police to obtain samples directly from suspects and to use the data from DNA samples in various ways. Issues such as the propriety of "DNA dragnets" (in which large numbers of individuals in a geographic …
The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb
The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Supreme Court doctrine protects two seemingly distinct kinds of interests under the heading of privacy rights: one "substantive," the other "procedural." The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been generally interpreted to protect procedural privacy. Searches are typically defined as governmental inspections of activities and locations in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. In the typical case, this reasonable expectation of privacy may be breached only where the government has acquired a quantitatively substantial objective basis for believing that the search would uncover evidence of a crime. Substantive privacy rights have not …
Claims For Damages For Violations Of State Constitutional Rights - Analysis Of The Recent Court Of Appeals Decision In Brown V. New York; The Resolved And Unresolved Issues, Martin A. Schwartz
Claims For Damages For Violations Of State Constitutional Rights - Analysis Of The Recent Court Of Appeals Decision In Brown V. New York; The Resolved And Unresolved Issues, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
It Was A Very Good Year - For The Government: The Supreme Court's Major Criminal Rulings Of The 1995-1996 Term, William E. Hellerstein
It Was A Very Good Year - For The Government: The Supreme Court's Major Criminal Rulings Of The 1995-1996 Term, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
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 …
To Act Or Not? That Is The Question: Self-Incrimination And The Sole Proprietor, Raymond G. Keenan
To Act Or Not? That Is The Question: Self-Incrimination And The Sole Proprietor, Raymond G. Keenan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Court And The Changing Constitution: A Discussion, Carl Sividorski, James Gardner, Barry Latzer, Peter Galie
The Court And The Changing Constitution: A Discussion, Carl Sividorski, James Gardner, Barry Latzer, Peter Galie
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen
Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen
Faculty Scholarship
The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …
Webster V. Doe, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
The Applicability Of Miranda Warnings To Non-Felony Offenses: Is The Proper Standard "Custodial Interrogation" Or "Severity Of The Offense"?, Kenneth W. Gaul
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 …
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
More than 50 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided the Weeks case, barring the use in federal prosecutions of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the Silverthorne case, invoking what has come to be known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The justices who decided those cases would, I think, be quite surprised to learn that some day the value of the exclusionary rule would be measured by-and the very life of the rule might depend on-an empirical evaluation of its efficacy in deterring police misconduct. These justices were engaged in a less …
Taxpayer Rights In Noncustodial Irs Investigations After Beckwith V. United States, Curtis L. Christensen
Taxpayer Rights In Noncustodial Irs Investigations After Beckwith V. United States, Curtis L. Christensen
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The recent Supreme Court decision in Beckwith v. United States, holding that Miranda does not extend to noncustodial tax investigations, has important implications with respect to the News Release doctrine and the involuntary consent grounds considered in motions to suppress evidence. This article will examine Beckwith and its potential significance with respect to these other doctrines, discussing the factors which the IRS and the courts should consider in order to assure fair treatment of taxpayers during investigations.
Conspiracy And Federal Jurisdiction: From Crimmins To Feola, Mark Berger
Conspiracy And Federal Jurisdiction: From Crimmins To Feola, Mark Berger
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
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
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 …
The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb
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 …
Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.
Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The passage in August, 1954 of a federal statute granting immunity under specified conditions to witnesses before congressional committees and in the federal courts marks a third legislative experiment designed to soften the effect of the Fifth Amendment as a limitation on the investigatory power of Congress. The first two attempts were less than successful. This comment will discuss the historical background of immunity legislation, and some possible constitutional pitfalls and problems of construction created by the statutory language.
Constitutional Law-Search And Seizure, Howard A. Jacobs S.Ed.
Constitutional Law-Search And Seizure, Howard A. Jacobs S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The most important step in the development of this constitutional provision came in 1886 in the famous case of Boyd v. United States. There the Court gave life to the Fourth Amendment by recognizing its intimate relation to the Fifth Amendment; thus laying the foundation for the federal rule that the Fifth Amendment protects every person from incrimination by the use of evidence obtained through search or seizure made in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. With the exception of a temporary setback in 1903, this rule, as restated in the Weeks case, has effectively weathered a …
Administrative Law - Compulsory Process To Obtain Evidence - Unreasonable Search And Seizure, William C. Wetherbee, Jr.
Administrative Law - Compulsory Process To Obtain Evidence - Unreasonable Search And Seizure, William C. Wetherbee, Jr.
Michigan Law Review
That the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum must comply with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was first established in the case of Boyd v. United States. The writ was there obtained for the purpose of extracting from a person evidence which was to be used against him in a criminal proceeding or forfeiture. This compulsory process which gave the state possession of a man's personal papers to incriminate him was considered a violation of not only the Fifth, but also the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court could have reached the same result …