Fourth Amendment Commons^™

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. …

Illinois V. Gates: Probable Cause Redefined, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 335 (1984), James W. Reilley, Barry E. Witlin, Christine P. Curran

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aerial Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 455 (1984), Alan C. Schaefer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure - Vessels In Inland Waters Are Subject To Suspicionless Boarding - United States V. Villamonte-Marquez, Wallace R. Young Jr.

Campbell Law Review

The purpose of this Note is to examine the fourth amendment implications of the holding in Villamonte-Marquez. The Note will examine the Court's treatment of Section 1581(a) under which the search arose, analyze the judicial treatment of the decisions relied on by the Court and criticize the Court's treatment of the "reasonableness" of the governmental intrusion. The Note concludes that because private cabin-boaters have great interests against arbitrary intrusion by officials, cases such as Villamonte-Marquez should be scrutinized more carefully to preserve the protection of the fourth amendment.

Criminal Procedure - Fourth Amendment - In Determining Whether An Affidavit Based Upon An Informant's Tip Constitutes Probable Cause To Issue A Search Warrant, A Magistrate Is To Apply A Totality Of Circumstances Approach, Jamieson M. Schiff

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Illinois v. Gates1 was the most eagerly awaited constitutional-criminal procedure case of the 1982 Term. I think it fair to say, however, that it was awaited a good deal more eagerly by law enforcement officials and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement than by defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. As it turned out, of course, the Gates Court, to the disappointment of many, did not reach the question whether the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases should be modified so as not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment when …

United States V. Villamonte-Marquez: Burial At Sea For The Fourth Amendment, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 545 (1984), William J. Arendt

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Yonn: Expanding The Government's Capability To Eavesdrop, Michael W. Cusick

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Seizures Of The Fourth Kind: Changing The Rules, Harry M. Caldwell

Cleveland State Law Review

While a large percentage of police-citizen encounters may be classified readily as falling within the protections of the fourth amendment, a number of them are difficult to categorize. Since the decision in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court has been grappling with the issue of when such encounters do, in fact, mandate fourth amendment protection. The Court's most recent pronouncement in this area, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, involved an Immigration and Naturalization Service factory sweep and the ensuing encounter between immigration officials and plant employees. In this significant and controversial opinion, the Court found that the Delgado …

Defending The Citadel: The Dangerous Attack Of "Reasonable Good Faith", Stanley Ingber

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article presents arguments that are designed to influence the Court's deliberations, to create a basis for critiquing the Court's opinions once rendered, and to provide guidance for state courts, which soon may need to decide whether a good faith exception is consistent with their state constitutions and procedures. To place the subsequent discussion in context, part I of the Article briefly sketches the historical development of the exclusionary rule. Part II develops the general arguments against the exclusionary rule and the specific arguments in favor of a good faith exception. Part III exposes the conceptual flaws of the exception …

Oliver V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Michigan V. Clifford, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Welsh V. Wisconsin, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Evidence Seized In Foreign Searches: When Does The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule Apply?, Steven H. Theisen

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lake Butler Apparel Co. V. Department Of Agricultural And Consumer Services, 551 F. Supp. 901 (M.D. Fla. 1982), Paul Bradshaw

Florida State University Law Review

Constitutional Law-SEARCH AND SEIZURE-PRUNING THE POISONOUS TREE: FLORIDA'S AGRICULTURAL INSPECTION STATUTE FALLS TO A FOURTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGE

"Knock, Knock" Is No Joke: Announcement Rules For Business Premises, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the courts should reject a home-business distinction in the application of announcement requirements. The Note concludes that announcement rules should apply whenever their underlying policies are served. This approach would apply announcement requirements to closed and occupied business premises.

Part I examines the arguments offered by some courts for a restrictive interpretation of announcement protections in the business context. Part I suggests that these arguments are unpersuasive and that the courts' application of announcement rules should correspond to the policies behind them. Part II argues that the policy justifications for announcement are served in the business …

Fourth Amendment Search And Seizure Requirements As Applied To Sniffing Investigations By Police Dogs: People V. Mayberry, Steven M. Bradford

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White

Michigan Law Review

Most contemporary discussions of the "exclusionary rule" assume or assert that this "rule" is not part of the fourth amendment, nor required by its terms, but is rather a judicial "remedy" that was fashioned to protect those rights (against unreasonable search and seizure) that actually are granted by the fourth amendment. The protection is said to work by "deterring" official violations; this is, however, an odd use of the word, for the rule does not punish violations but merely deprives the government of some of the benefits that might ensue from them, namely the use in the criminal case of …

In Defense Of The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule—A Reply To Attorney General Smith, John Wesley Hall Jr.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Article establishes that the government has a right to search for and seize evidence of crime. Part II develops the corollary proposition that the fourth amendment does not protect the right to secrete evidence of crime. Part III explores the impact of the reasonable expectation of privacy concept on the innocent. Part IV evaluates consent searches and their effect on the innocent. Finally, Part V considers the exclusionary rule as a device for protecting the innocent.

Warrantless Investigative Searches And Seizures Of Automobiles And Their Contents, Steven A.G. Davison

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Use Of Surveillance Evidence Under Title Iii, Thomas C. Banks

Vanderbilt Law Review

The rationale offered by Congress for requiring immediate sealing of wiretapping tapes by the court upon the completion of the interception period is to preserve the integrity of the tapes by preventing any tape tampering, alteration, editing, or other governmental bad faith. Congress, however, also added an exception to the sealing requirement that permits disclosure of the tapes' contents in a judicial proceeding if the government has contravened the sealing requirement yet has offered a satisfactory explanation for either a failure to seal or a delay in sealing. No circuit court treats sealing requirement violations in a manner that effects …

Criminal Procedure - Fourth Amendment - Search And Seizure - Grand Jury Request For Hair Samples Is Not Subject To Constraints Of The Fourth Amendment, Collins J. Seitz Jr.

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

[U]ntil the [exclusionary rule] rests on a principled basis rather than an empirical proposition, [the rule] will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium. Mapp v. Ohio, which overruled the then twelve-year-old Wolf case and imposed the fourth amendment exclusionary rule (the Weeks doctrine) on the states as a matter of fourteenth amendment due process, seemed to mark the end of an era. Concurring in Mapp, Justice Douglas recalled that Wolf had evoked "a storm of constitutional controversy which only today finds its end."' But in the two decades since Justice Douglas made this observation, the storm of controversy has …

Review Of Search And Seizure: Constitutional And Common Law, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

Review of Search and Seizure: Constitutional and Common Law by John W. Hall.

Warrantless Searches And Seizures In Virginia, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

There is a well-recognized lack of consistency and clarity in fourth amendment decisions. At times, each search and seizure case seen is unique and the decisions appear to rest on factual determinations rather than on legal principles. Nonetheless, it is desirable to have some understanding of the basic principles of the fourth amendment, and the way in which these principles affect individual cases.

The Warren Court (Was It Really So Defense-Minded?), The Burger Court (Is It Really So Prosecution-Oriented?), And Police Investigatory Practices, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

In one sense the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure may be said to. have been launched by the 1956 case of Griffin v. Illinois (establishing an indigent criminal defendant's right to a free transcript on appeal, at least under certain circumstances) and to have been significantly advanced by two 1963 cases: Gideon v. Wainwright (entitling an indigent defendant to free counsel, at least in serious criminal cases) and Douglas v. California (requiring a state to provide an indigent with counsel on his first appeal from a criminal conviction). But these were not the cases that plunged the Warren …

Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

Richard Nixon's criticism of the Warren Court during the 1968 presidential campaign centered largely on the Court's handling of cases involving criminal rights. According to candidate Nixon, the Court had gone much too far. It had twisted the Constitution to serve its own purposes, created a maze of legal technicalities that worked only to frustrate legitimate law enforcement efforts, and so weakened "the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country" as to be largely responsible for the sharp rise in crime that had occurred in the sixties. What had to be done, continued Nixon, was to appoint …

Prior Restraint Of Expression Through The Private Search Doctrine, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Case Digest, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES LAW TO A FOREIGN SEAMAN'S SUIT DEPENDS UPON THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE FOREIGN DEFENDANT'S CONTACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES--Szumlicz v. Norwegian America Line, Inc., 698 F.2d 1192 (11th Cir. 1983).

RECOVERY PURSUANT TO THE FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM SEIZURE OF VESSLS FISHING IN DISPUTED WATERS Is NOT LIMITED TO CITIZENS AND RESIDENT ALIENS OF THE UNITED STATES-CrUZ V. Zapata Ocean Resources, Inc., 695 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1982).

UNITED STATES SUPPORT OF CANADIAN SEARCH OF UNITED STATES VESSEL ON THE HIGH SEAS DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS--United States v. Hensel, 699 …