Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Privacy Law
The Effect Of Legislation On Fourth Amendment Protection, Orin S. Kerr
The Effect Of Legislation On Fourth Amendment Protection, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
When judges interpret the Fourth Amendment, and privacy legislation regulates the government’s conduct, should the legislation have an effect on the Fourth Amendment? Courts are split three ways. Some courts argue that legislation provides the informed judgment of a coequal branch that should influence the Fourth Amendment. Some courts contend that the presence of legislation should displace Fourth Amendment protection to prevent constitutional rules from interfering with the legislature’s handiwork. Finally, some courts treat legislation and the Fourth Amendment as independent and contend that the legislation should have no effect. This Article argues that courts should favor interpreting the Fourth …
The Public Right Of Access To Juvenile Delinquency Hearings, Michigan Law Review
The Public Right Of Access To Juvenile Delinquency Hearings, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Despite the differences between the criminal and juvenile court systems, the Supreme Court has extended many criminal procedural safeguards to juvenile delinquency hearings. The Court does not, however, "automatically and preemptorily" apply every procedural safeguard to juvenile hearings; rather, it carefully examines the criminal trial standard in the context of delinquency hearings. Adopting a similar approach, this Note considers the implications of a constitutional right of access to juvenile delinquency hearings. Part I examines the right of access announced in Globe Newspaper and Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia. Part II looks at the juvenile justice system and argues that extension …
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Use Of Television At Congressional Hearings, S. I. Shuman
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Use Of Television At Congressional Hearings, S. I. Shuman
Michigan Law Review
Defendant, not claiming constitutional protection against self-incrimination, refused to testify before a Senate committee on grounds that his "constitutional rights" would be violated if compelled to give testimony while being televised, photographed, etc. Cited for willfully and without justification refusing to testify on matters pertinent to the purpose of the inquiry, defendant was tried for contempt of Congress. Held, not guilty; defendant's refusal was justified. The court, after stating that there were no precedents, and that no constitutional issue was involved, seemed to rest its decision on the fact that the atmosphere of the forum did not lend itself …