Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Taylor, Aileen R. Kavanagh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Park, Marcia Miller

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Third Department, Landsman V. Village Of Hancock, Joaquin Orellana

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department, Morris V. Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey, Brooke Lupinacci

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Wright, Melanie Hendry

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Scalia's Fourth Amendment: Text, Context, Clarity, And Occasional Faint-Hearted Originalism, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

Since joining the United States Supreme Court in 1986, Justice Scalia has been a prominent voice on the Fourth Amendment, having written twenty majority opinions, twelve concurrences, and six dissents on the topic. Under his pen, the Court has altered its test for determining when the Fourth Amendment should apply; provided a vision to address technology's encroachment on privacy; and articulated the standard for determining whether government officials are entitled to qualified immunity in civil suits involving alleged Fourth Amendment violations. In most of Justice Scalia's opinions, he has championed an originalist/textualist theory of constitutional interpretation. Based on that theory, …

From Fugitives To Ferguson: Repairing Historical And Structural Defects In Legally Sanctioned Use Of Deadly Force, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

The lawful use of lethal force to subdue suspected wrongdoers has a long tradition in our nation. There is certainly nothing wrong with securing, incapacitating, or even killing violent persons who pose a serious threat to the lives of innocent individuals. One of the important roles of government is to protect people from harm and keep the peace. Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, have highlighted the tension between the officers on the beat and citizens on the street. These tensions are not likely to subside unless there are major structural changes in the way the police do their job and …

Better The Mob And The Ku-Klux: A History Of The Law Of Search And Seizure In Florida, Milton Hirsch

St. Thomas Law Review

As late as 1930, and on several occasions prior to that date, Harvard Law Professor Felix Frankfurter could offer, as an example of something that the Supreme Court would almost never be called upon to decide, "whether the [Fourth Amendment] protection against 'unreasonable searches and seizures' is violated. In 1939 Professor Frankfurter was appointed to the High Court, where he would serve for 23 years; and where, as Justice Frankfurter, he would participate in a great many notable opinions having to do with whether the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated. That Professor Frankfurter made …

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Celaj, Danielle Dupré

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Johnson, Denise Shanley

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For Rational Basis Review Of General Suspicionless Searches And Seizures, Richard C. Worf

Touro Law Review

This article examines the constitutional status of suspicionless searches and seizures of groups- an exceedingly important question in the age of terror, and a subject recently brought back to the forefront by the searches of subway passengers in New York City. It draws on process theory to argue that when a legislature has authorized a group search or seizure, courts should generally apply rational basis review.

First, other areas of constitutional doctrine exhibit deep trust in the power of groups to protect their interests in political process, and there is no reason why fourth amendment doctrine should not do the …

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Smith, Jessica Miller

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Hall, Eric Pack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Burton, Diane Matero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - People V. Ruppert, Sardar Asadullah

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - People V. Willette, Mark Tsukerman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rapid Rise Of Delayed Notice Searches, And The Fourth Amendment “Rule Requiring Notice”, Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Pepperdine Law Review

This article documents the rapid rise of covert searching, through delayed notice search warrants, and argues that covert searching in its current form presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment’s “rule requiring notice.” Congress authorized these “sneak and peek” warrants in the USA Patriot Act, in 2001, and soon after added a reporting requirement to monitor this invasive search technique. Since 2001, the use of delayed notice search warrants has risen dramatically, from around 25 in 2002 to 5,601 in 2012, suggesting that “sneak and peek” searches are becoming alarmingly common. In fact, it is not at all clear whether true “sneak …

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.

A Delayed Search Of An Automobile Makes For An Unconstitutional Seizure, Sean J. Mcgowan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Probable Cause And Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests Or Rigid Rules?, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

This piece argues that the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision in Navarette v. Calfornia, like last Term's opinion in Florida v. Harris, deviates from longstanding Supreme Court precedent treating probable cause and reasonable suspicion as totality-of-the-circumstances tests. Instead, these two recent rulings essentially rely on rigid rules to define probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The article criticizes the Court for selectively endorsing bright-line tests that favor the prosecution, and argues that both decisions generate rules that oversimplify and therefore tend to be overinclusive.

Searches Incident To Arrest And The Aftermath Of Arizona V. Gant – A Circuit Split As To Gant’S Applicability To Non-Vehicular Searches, Nicholas De Sena

Pace Law Review

The nation’s struggle to balance individual rights of privacy and legitimate law enforcement efforts continues without any clear resolution in sight. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, stating that search warrants shall be issued only with a showing of probable cause, a description of the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Complementing the warrant requirement is the principal that searches done without a warrant are per se unreasonable. The Supreme Court, however, has recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement under …

New Jersey V. T.L.O.: The Supreme Court Severely Limits Schoolchildrens' Fourth Amendment Rights When Being Searched By Public School Officials, Missy Kelly Bankhead

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

On The 'Considered Analysis' Of Collecting Dna Before Conviction, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

For nearly a decade, DNA-on-arrest laws eluded scrutiny in the courts. For another five years, they withstood a gathering storm of constitutional challenges. In Maryland v. King, however, Maryland's highest court reasoned that usually fingerprints provide everything police need to establish the true identity of an individual before trial and that the state's interest in finding the perpetrators of crimes by trawling databases of DNA profiles is too "generalized" to support "a warrantless, suspicionless search." The U.S. Supreme Court reacted forcefully. Chief Justice Roberts stayed the Maryland judgment, writing that "given the considered analysis of courts on the other side …

Maryland V. King: Terry V. Ohio Redux, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court addressed whether forensic testing of DNA samples taken from persons arrested for violent felonies violated the Fourth Amendment. The purpose behind DNA testing laws is obvious: collecting and analyzing DNA samples advances the capacity of law enforcement to solve both "cold cases" and future crimes when the government has evidence of the perpetrator's DNA from the crime scene. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, upheld Maryland's DNA testing statute, and presumably the similar laws of twenty-seven other states and the federal government. Although Justice Kennedy's opinion suggests …

Random, Suspicionless Searches Of Students' Belongings: A Legal, Empirical, And Normative Analysis, Jason P. Nance

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article provides a legal, empirical, and normative analysis of an intrusive search practice used by schools officials to prevent school crime: random, suspicionless searches of students’ belongings. First, it argues that these searches are not permitted under the Fourth Amendment unless schools have particularized evidence of a weapons or substance problem in their schools. Second, it provides normative considerations against implementing strict security measures in schools, especially when they are applied disproportionately on minority students. Third, drawing on recent restricted data from the U.S. Department of Education’s School Survey on Crime and Safety, it provides empirical findings that raise …

Students, Security, And Race, Jason P. Nance

UF Law Faculty Publications

In the wake of the terrible shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, our nation has turned its attention to school security. For example, several states have passed or are considering passing legislation that will provide new funding to schools for security equipment and law enforcement officers. Strict security measures in schools are certainly not new. In response to prior acts of school violence, many public schools for years have relied on metal detectors, random sweeps, locked gates, surveillance cameras, and law enforcement officers to promote school safety. Before policymakers and school officials invest more money in strict security measures, this Article provides …

Passing The Sniff Test: Police Dogs As Surveillance Technology, Irus Braverman

Journal Articles

In October 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States will review the case of Florida v. Jardines, which revolves around the constitutionality of police canine Franky’s sniff outside a private residence. Essentially, the Court will need to decide whether or not the sniff constitutes a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. This Article presents a review of the often-contradictory case law that exists on this question to suggest that underlying the various cases is the Courts’ assumption of a juxtaposed relationship between nature and technology. Where dog sniffs are perceived as a technology, the courts have been inclined to also …

Maryland V. King: Terry V. Ohio Redux, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court addressed whether forensic testing of DNA samples taken from persons arrested for violent felonies violated the Fourth Amendment. The purpose behind DNA testing laws is obvious: collecting and analyzing DNA samples advances the capacity of law enforcement to solve both "cold cases" and future crimes when the government has evidence of the perpetrator's DNA from the crime scene.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, upheld Maryland's DNA testing statute, and presumably the similar laws of twenty-seven other states and the federal government.

Although Justice Kennedy's opinion suggests …