Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Consensual Searches, The Fairytale That Became A Nightmare: Fargo Lessons Concerning Police Initiated Encounters, Robert V. Ward Jr.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Liberals Should Chuck The Exclusionary Rule, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article makes the case against the exclusionary rule from a "liberal" perspective. Moving beyond the inconclusive empirical data on the efficacy of the rule, it uses behavioral and motivational theory to demonstrate why the rule is structurally unable to deter individual police officers from performing most unconstitutional searches and seizures. It also argues, contrary to liberal dogma, that the rule is poor at promoting Fourth Amendment values at the systemic, departmental level. Finally, the article contends that the rule stultifies liberal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, in large part because of judicial heuristics that grow out of constant exposure …

Abrogating The Exclusionary Rule Outside Of The Criminal Trial Context? Pennsylvania Board Of Probation & Parole V. Scott: One Step Closer To A Per Se Rule In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Richard F. Dzubin

University of Richmond Law Review

As citizens of the United States, most of us would abhor warrantless police intrusion into our homes. The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. When unaccompanied by a valid search warrant, a search of a residence is presumptively unreasonable. Thus, the law proscribes overly-aggressive investigatory methods that trammel the rights of American citizens. What happens, however, when the protected right belongs to a paroled felon suspected of violating the conditions of his parole? In Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, the United States Supreme Court refused to extend to parolees the remedies which are …

Breaking Out Of "Custody": A Feminist Voice In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Dana Raigrodski

Articles

In this Essay, I suggest that reexamination of this field of law through a feminist lens can shed new light and add to the understanding of constitutional criminal procedure. These insights, in turn, can and should generate a positive feminist jurisprudence of criminal procedure—a distinctive feminist voice to be integrated systematically into our constitutional criminal procedure and our criminal justice system. Applying feminist legal theories to particular areas of constitutional criminal procedure may help guide us through the more difficult task of constructing a positive feminist jurisprudence of constitutional criminal procedure. Many areas of constitutional criminal procedure lend themselves as …

Confessions, Search And Seizure And The Rehnquist Court, Yale Kamisar

Articles

About the time William Rehnquist ascended to the Chief Justiceship of the United States, two events occurred that increased the likelihood that Miranda would enjoy a long life. In Moran v. Burbine,' a 6-3 majority held that a confession preceded by an otherwise valid waiver of a suspect's Miranda rights should not be excluded either (a) because the police misled an inquiring attorney when they told her they were not going to question the suspect she called about or (b) because the police failed to inform the suspect of the attorney's efforts to reach him.

Suspicionless Drug Testing And Chandler V. Miller: Is The Supreme Court Making The Right Decisions, Ross H. Parr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

During the last decade, the United States Supreme Court has rendered four major decisions regarding the validity of suspicionless drug testing policies. Such drug testing policies have become a common way for employers and other interested parties-including the government-both to deter the use of drugs and to determine who is acting under the influence of illegal narcotics. Because government officials often randomly select individuals for drug testing, some of these individuals have charged that a governmental drug testing policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing in three cases decided between 1989 and 1997, but in …

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 …

Pleading The Fourth, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

An Alternative Approach To The Fourth Amendment In Public Schools: Balancing Students' Rights With School Safety, J. Chad Mitchell

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chandler V. Miller: The Supreme Court Closed The Door On The Factual Instances That Warrant Suspicionless Searches, Justin Scott

Mercer Law Review

Chandler v. Miller involved the constitutionality of a Georgia statute that required candidates for designated state offices to pass a drug test prior to qualifying for nomination or election.

Let's Not Bury Terry: A Call For Rejuvenation Of The Proportionality Principle, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Thirty years ago, "Terry v. Ohio" established a conceptual framework for the Fourth Amendment that makes more sense than any alternative the courts or commentators have come up with since. That frame-work, which I call the proportionality principle, is very simple: a search or seizure is reasonable if the strength of its justification is roughly proportionate to the level of intrusion associated with the police action. As the Court put it, "there is 'no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search or seize against the invasion which the search or seizure entails.' In "Terry" …

Choosing Perspectives In Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, Professor Bacigal examines the Supreme Court's use of various perspectives in examining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court purports to rely on a consistent method of constitutional analysis when rendering decisions on Fourth Amendment issues, the case law in this area indicates that the Court is influenced sometimes by the citizen's perspective, sometimes by the police officers' perspective, and sometimes by the perspective of the hypothesized reasonable person. After identifying the role of perspectives in a number of seminal Court decisions, Professor Bacigal discusses the benefits and limitations of the Court's reliance on …

Race, Rights, And Remedies In Criminal Adjudication, Pamela S. Karlan

Michigan Law Review

Once upon a time, back before the Warren Court, criminal procedure and racial justice were adjacent hinterlands in constitutional law's empire. In 1954, the fifth edition of Dowling's constitutional law casebook contained one chapter on "procedural due process" in which six of the eight cases were about criminal justice, and three of those - Powell v. Alabama, Moore v. Dempsey, and Bailey v. Alabama - were as much about race as they were about crime. A few pages later, two slender chapters on the "national protection of civil rights" and "equal protection of the laws" contained seven and nine decisions, …

The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Today: The Demands Of The Fourth Amendment, Nix, And Murray, And The Disagreement Among The Federal Circuits, Troy E. Golden

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Maryland V. Wilson: The Fading Fourth Amendment, Gregory Lineberry

Mercer Law Review

In Maryland v. Wilson, the United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may order a passenger of a lawfully stepped car to exit the vehicle. This "bright-line rule" allows these intrusions as a matter of course and does not require case-by-case determination.

Choosing Perspectives In Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Bacigal examines the Supreme Court's use of various perspectives in examining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court purports to rely on a consistent method of constitutional analysis when rendering decisions on Fourth Amendment issues, the case law in this area indicates that the Court is influenced sometimes by the citizen's perspective, sometimes by the police officers' perspective, and sometimes by the perspective of the hypothesized reasonable person.

After identifying the role of perspectives in a number of seminal Court decisions, Professor Bacigal discusses the benefits and limitations of the Court's reliance on …

"We The People" And Our Enduring Values, Susan Bandes

Michigan Law Review

Akhil Amar chides legal scholars for believing that the current system of criminal procedure, both substantive and remedial, is constitutionally compelled. He writes, "Scholars should know better, but too few of those who write in criminal procedure do serious, sustained scholarship in constitutional law generally, or in fields like federal jurisdiction and remedies" (p. 115). Amar believes, as I do, that criminal procedure has been impoverished by its failure to connect to "larger themes of constitutional, remedial and jurisdictional theory" (p. 115). But as one who has done serious, sustained scholarship in all the areas Amar mentions - or so …

Ad Hoc Adjudication: People V. Champion, Another Confusing Element In The Turmoil Following Minnesota V. Dickerson, Audra A. Dial

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Race And The Fourth Amendment, Tracey Maclin

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court held that pretextual traffic stops do not raise Fourth Amendment concerns. In this Article, Professor Maclin contends that by requiring only probable cause of a traffic offense to justify pretextual seizures, the Court mistakenly ignores racial impact when marking the protective boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. Professor Maclin argues that race matters when measuring the dynamics and legitimacy of certain police-citizen encounters. Pretextual traffic stops unreasonably use racial targeting, therefore, the Court should make racial impact a factor in determining the constitutionality of the pretextual seizure.

Professor Maclin begins by examining objective, …

Off Broadway: The Supreme Court's Criminal Law Decisions In The 1996 Term Take Second Stage In An Historic Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Passenger Profiling: A Greater Terror Than Terrorism Itself, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 167 (1998), Donna Smith

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond Privacy, Beyond Probable Cause, Beyond The Fourth Amendment: New Strategies For Fighting Pretext Arrests, 69 U. Colo. L. Rev. 693 (1998), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Race And The Fourth Amendment, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

In Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court held that pretextual traffic stops do not raise Fourth Amendment concerns. In this Article, Professor Maclin contends that by requiring only probable cause of a traffic offense to justify pretextual seizures, the Court mistakenly ignores racial impact when marking the protective boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. Professor Maclin argues that race matters when measuring the dynamics and legitimacy of certain police-citizen encounters. Pretextual traffic stops unreasonably use racial targeting, therefore, the Court should make racial impact a factor in determining the constitutionality of the pretextual seizure. Professor Maclin begins by examining objective, …

Terry V. Ohio's Fourth Amendment Legacy: Black Men And Police Discretion, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Police Patrol, Judicial Integrity, And The Limits Of Judicial Control, Debra A. Livingston

Faculty Scholarship

I want to thank St. John's for inviting me to be part of this reexamination of Terry v. Ohio – and particularly for this opportunity to participate in a roundtable discussion on the relationship between stop and frisk doctrine and the substantive law. This is an important and timely topic and I am happy to see it being discussed in such a serious venue.

When I was preparing my remarks for today, I thought I should call them, "Terry and the Substantive Law: A Hard, Hard Problem." Fortunately, I have sworn off titles with colons, so I settled on "Police …

The Legal Future Of Reality Cop Shows: Parker V. Boyer Dismisses 1983 Claims Against Police Officers And Television Stations Jointly Engaged In Searches Of Homes, Christopher A. Rothe

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal (1994 - )

No abstract provided.

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.

What's In A Word? A Comparative Analysis Of Article I, § 12 Of The New York State Constitution And The Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution As Interpreted By The New York Court Of Appeals And The United States Supreme Court, Douglas Holden Wigdor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Court Of Appeals: People V. Turriago

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: People V. Lafontaine

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.