Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (224)
- Seattle University School of Law (200)
- University of Michigan Law School (150)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (64)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (60)
-
- UIC School of Law (38)
- University of Colorado Law School (33)
- Columbia Law School (31)
- American University Washington College of Law (26)
- Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan (22)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (22)
- Boston University School of Law (21)
- Pepperdine University (21)
- William & Mary Law School (19)
- Georgia State University College of Law (18)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (17)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (16)
- University of Richmond (15)
- BLR (13)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (13)
- St. Mary's University (13)
- University of Baltimore Law (12)
- Brooklyn Law School (11)
- New York Law School (11)
- University of Maine School of Law (11)
- St. John's University School of Law (10)
- University of Kentucky (10)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (10)
- University of Washington School of Law (10)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (10)
- Keyword
-
- Police (160)
- Capital punishment sentencing (107)
- Capital punishment (73)
- Criminal law (67)
- Fourth Amendment (65)
-
- United States Supreme Court (62)
- Criminal justice (49)
- Fifth Amendment (48)
- Constitution (47)
- Criminal procedure (47)
- Sentencing (46)
- Law enforcement (44)
- Searches (43)
- Miranda v. Arizona (42)
- Evidence (41)
- Incarceration (40)
- Supreme Court (36)
- Criminal Procedure (33)
- Probable cause (33)
- Federal (31)
- Punishment (31)
- Confessions (30)
- Exclusionary rule (30)
- Race (30)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (29)
- Fourth amendment (29)
- Law Enforcement (29)
- Policing (29)
- Seizures (28)
- Constitutional Law (27)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (198)
- Capital Defense Journal (167)
- Faculty Scholarship (82)
- Michigan Law Review (79)
- Touro Law Review (50)
-
- Articles (46)
- Publications (33)
- UIC Law Review (32)
- ProAcademy (22)
- All Faculty Scholarship (21)
- Scholarly Articles (21)
- Cardozo Law Review (20)
- Faculty Publications (19)
- Pepperdine Law Review (18)
- Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice (16)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (16)
- Georgia State University Law Review (15)
- Book Chapters (14)
- Faculty Articles (13)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (12)
- Faculty Works (11)
- Maine Law Review (11)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (10)
- ExpressO (10)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (10)
- Northwestern University Law Review (10)
- Research Reports & White Papers (10)
- West Virginia Law Review (10)
- University of Richmond Law Review (9)
- Buffalo Law Review (8)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 961 - 990 of 1359
Full-Text Articles in Law Enforcement and Corrections
Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse Verdict Forms
Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse Verdict Forms
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …
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 …
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Michigan Law Review
The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Michigan Law Review
Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
Michigan Law Review
Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Michigan Law Review
Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling
Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo
You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Empirically Based Comparison Of American And European Regulatory Approaches To Police Investigation, Christopher Slobogin
An Empirically Based Comparison Of American And European Regulatory Approaches To Police Investigation, Christopher Slobogin
Michigan Journal of International Law
This article takes a comparative and empirical look at two of the most significant methods of police investigation: searches for and seizures of tangible evidence and interrogation of suspects. It first compares American doctrine regulating these investigative tools with the analogous rules predominant in Europe. It then discusses research on the American system that sheds light on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two regulatory regimes.
Lawyers, Jails, And The Law’S Fake Bargains, Michael E. Tigar
Lawyers, Jails, And The Law’S Fake Bargains, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Reflections On When "We, The People" Kill, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 713 (2001), Michael P. Seng
Reflections On When "We, The People" Kill, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 713 (2001), Michael P. Seng
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Do People Support Capital Punishment? The Death Penalty As Community Ritual, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 765 (2001), Donald L. Beschle
Why Do People Support Capital Punishment? The Death Penalty As Community Ritual, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 765 (2001), Donald L. Beschle
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Doctrine Of Non-Inquiry And The Preservation Of Human Rights:-Is There Room For Reconciliation?, Michael S. Topiel
The Doctrine Of Non-Inquiry And The Preservation Of Human Rights:-Is There Room For Reconciliation?, Michael S. Topiel
Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
The note explores the tension between individual human rights under international law and state interests in combating cross-border crime, focusing on the doctrine of noninquiry in extradition cases. It argues that while the Convention Against Torture imposes obligations to prevent extradition to situations of torture, the doctrine of noninquiry—where courts avoid scrutinizing the requesting state’s justice system—remains crucial for maintaining separation of powers and diplomatic relations. The analysis highlights the balancing act between protecting human rights and ensuring international cooperation in law enforcement.
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Publications
No abstract provided.
Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross
Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
In Lonnie Weeks's capital murder trial in Virginia in 1993, the jury was instructed: If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, either of the two alternative aggravating factors], and as to that alternative you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment ... This instruction is plainly ambiguous, at least to a lay audience. Does it mean that if the …
The Next Stage Of Forfeiture Reform, Eric D. Blumenson, Eva Nilsen
The Next Stage Of Forfeiture Reform, Eric D. Blumenson, Eva Nilsen
Faculty Scholarship
In passing the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Congress instituted some badly needed reforms to a system that had spawned a good deal of governmental abuse, media investigation, and popular outrage. Unfortunately, however, CAFRA does not address the aspect of asset forfeiture law that is perhaps most responsible for fueling overzealous, sometimes lawless use of the forfeiture power: federal forfeiture law continues to authorize law enforcement agencies to retain the drug-related assets they seize for their own use, and many state laws do as well. With facilities, cruisers, computer and other equipment, salaries and positions sometimes dependent on …
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
Va. Code Ann. S 18.2-10(A) (Michie 2000) Va. Code Ann. S 19.2-264.4(A) (Michie 2000) Va. Code Ann. S 19.2-11.01(A)(3)(C) (Michie 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Smith V. Robbins 120 S. Ct. 746 (2000)
Procedural Default: A De Facto Exception To Civility?, Ashley Flynn
Procedural Default: A De Facto Exception To Civility?, Ashley Flynn
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Bridging The Procedural Default Chasm, Matthew K. Mahoney
Bridging The Procedural Default Chasm, Matthew K. Mahoney
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Breaking The Code Of Silence: Rediscovering "Custom" In Section 1983 Municipal Liability, Myriam E. Gilles
Breaking The Code Of Silence: Rediscovering "Custom" In Section 1983 Municipal Liability, Myriam E. Gilles
Articles
No abstract provided.
Science Fact Or Science Fiction? The Implications Of Court-Ordered Genetic Testing Under Rule 35, 34 U.S.F. L. Rev. 295 (2000), Anthony Niedwiecki
Science Fact Or Science Fiction? The Implications Of Court-Ordered Genetic Testing Under Rule 35, 34 U.S.F. L. Rev. 295 (2000), Anthony Niedwiecki
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Adversity Of Race And Place: Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In Illinois V. Wardlow, 528 S. Ct. 673 (2000), Adam B. Wolf
The Adversity Of Race And Place: Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In Illinois V. Wardlow, 528 S. Ct. 673 (2000), Adam B. Wolf
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This Case Note lays out Wardlow's pertinent facts, describes the decisions of the Court and lower courts, and then analyzes the ramifications of the Court's holding. In particular, this Case Note argues that the Court's ruling recognizes substantially less Fourth Amendment protections for people of color and indigent citizens than for wealthy Caucasians. This perpetuates a cycle of humiliating experiences, as well as fear and mistrust of the police by many poor people of color.