Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Fourth Amendment

Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 301 - 330 of 470

Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Beyond The Fourth Amendment: Additional Constitutional Guarantees That Mass Surveillance Violates, Nadine Strossen Jan 2015

Beyond The Fourth Amendment: Additional Constitutional Guarantees That Mass Surveillance Violates, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

The ongoing dragnet communications surveillance programs raise multiple statutory and constitutional problems. Each problem alone, and even more so the whole combination, provides a serious ground at least for vastly curbing such programs, if not ending them. This Article reviews constitutional challenges to these programs to evaluate the likely success of current and future litigants.

Go to article

Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2014

Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Symposium: Surprising Unanimity, Even More Surprising Clarity, Adam M. Gershowitz Jun 2014

Symposium: Surprising Unanimity, Even More Surprising Clarity, Adam M. Gershowitz

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Go to article

The Impact Of Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa On The Doctrine Of Fear-Based Standing, Amanda M. Mcdowell Jan 2014

The Impact Of Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa On The Doctrine Of Fear-Based Standing, Amanda M. Mcdowell

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA dealt with the government's electronic surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence SurveillanceAct (FISA) Amendments. In a 5- 4 opinion, the Court held that a variety of U.S. persons, including attorneys and media organizations, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments because the plaintiffs' fear of future unlawful surveillance was not "certainly impending." Depending on how lower courts choose to interpret Clapper, the decision could have a significant impact on the doctrine of fear-based standing, which allows plaintiffs to establish standing based on fear of …

Go to article

The Court Loses Its Way With The Global Positioning System: United States V. Jones Retreats To The “Classic Trespassory Search”, George M. Dery Iii, Ryan Evaro Dec 2013

The Court Loses Its Way With The Global Positioning System: United States V. Jones Retreats To The “Classic Trespassory Search”, George M. Dery Iii, Ryan Evaro

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article analyzes United States v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court considered whether government placement of a global positioning system (GPS) device on a vehicle to follow a person’s movements constituted a Fourth Amendment “search.” The Jones Court ruled that two distinct definitions existed for a Fourth Amendment “search.” In addition to Katz v. United States’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard, which the Court had used exclusively for over four decades, the Court recognized a second kind of search that it called a “classic trespassory search.” The second kind of search occurs when officials physically trespass or intrude upon a constitutionally protected …

Go to article

Florida V. Jardines: The Wolf At The Castle Door, Timothy C. Macdonnell Jan 2013

Florida V. Jardines: The Wolf At The Castle Door, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

The purpose of this article is to examine the controversy regarding the application of the contraband exception to the home and the potential impact of the Florida v. Jardines decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The article will begin by examining the cases that make up the Supreme Court's contraband exception and some of the Court's precedent regarding the home and warrantless searches. Next, the article will examine the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Jardines and discuss how the Florida court arrived at the conclusion that the canine sniff in that case was a search. This section will compare the …

Go to article

Clever Contraband: Why Illinois’ Lockstep With The U.S. Supreme Court Gives Police Authority To Search The Bowels Of Your Vehicle, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 425 (2013), Jason Cooper Jan 2013

Clever Contraband: Why Illinois’ Lockstep With The U.S. Supreme Court Gives Police Authority To Search The Bowels Of Your Vehicle, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 425 (2013), Jason Cooper

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Everyman's Exclusionary Rule: The Exclusionary Rule And The Rule Of Law (Or Why Conservatives Should Embrace The Exclusionary Rule), Scott E. Sundby Jan 2013

Everyman's Exclusionary Rule: The Exclusionary Rule And The Rule Of Law (Or Why Conservatives Should Embrace The Exclusionary Rule), Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Ensuring Miranda’S Right To Counsel Abroad, David Henek '12 Jan 2013

Ensuring Miranda’S Right To Counsel Abroad, David Henek '12

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr Dec 2012

The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr

Michigan Law Review

In the Supreme Court's recent decision on GPS surveillance, United States v. Jones, five justices authored or joined concurring opinions that applied a new approach to interpreting Fourth Amendment protection. Before Jones, Fourth Amendment decisions had always evaluated each step of an investigation individually. Jones introduced what we might call a "mosaic theory" of the Fourth Amendment, by which courts evaluate a collective sequence of government activity as an aggregated whole to consider whether the sequence amounts to a search. This Article considers the implications of a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the choices and puzzles that …

Go to article

Signal Lost: Is A Gps Tracking System The Same As An Eyeball?, Eric Andrew Felleman Jan 2012

Signal Lost: Is A Gps Tracking System The Same As An Eyeball?, Eric Andrew Felleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

On November 8th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Jones. One of the primary issues in the case is whether law enforcement personnel violated Mr. Jones' Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by using a GPS tracking device to monitor the location of his car without a warrant. The 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit have both recently held that use of GPS tracking is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Go to article

The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar Jan 2012

The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar

Articles

There has been a good deal of talk lately to the effect that Miranda1 is dead or dying-or might as well be dead.2 Even liberals have indicated that the death of Miranda might not be a bad thing. This brings to mind a saying by G.K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up."4

Go to article

Bringing Clarity To Administrative Search Doctrine: Distinguishing Dragnets From Special Subpopulation Searches, Eve Brensike Primus Jan 2012

Bringing Clarity To Administrative Search Doctrine: Distinguishing Dragnets From Special Subpopulation Searches, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Anyone who has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, screened at an international border, scanned by a metal detector at an airport or government building, or drug tested for public employment has been subjected to an administrative search or seizure. Searches of public school students, government employees, and probationers are characterized as administrative, as are business inspections and-increasingly-wiretaps and other searches used in the gathering of national security intelligence. In other words, the government conducts thousands of administrative searches every day. None of these searches requires either probable cause or a search warrant. Instead, courts evaluating administrative searches need only …

Go to article

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert L. Tsai, Nelson Tebbe Oct 2011

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert L. Tsai, Nelson Tebbe

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This is a response to Jennifer E. Laurin, "Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence," 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011), which analyzes the Supreme Court's resort to tort-based concepts to limit the reach of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. We press three points. First, there are differences between a general and specific critique of constitutional borrowing. Second, the idea of convergence as a distinct phenomenon from borrowing has explanatory potential and should be further explored. Third, to the extent convergence occurs, it matters whether concerns of judicial administration or political reconstruction are driving doctrinal changes.

Go to article

Section 1: Moot Court: United States V. Jones, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2011

Section 1: Moot Court: United States V. Jones, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Framing The Fourth, Tracey Maclin, Julia Mirabella Apr 2011

Framing The Fourth, Tracey Maclin, Julia Mirabella

Michigan Law Review

Our knowledge of the Fourth Amendment's history was fundamentally transformed when William Cuddihy completed his Ph.D. dissertation in 1990. Cuddihy's study was the most comprehensive and detailed examination of the history of search and seizure law and essential reading for anyone interested in the amendment's history. At first, Cuddihy's work was little known: only a few people noticed when the highly regarded constitutional historian Leonard W. Levy stated that "Cuddihy is the best authority on the origins of the Fourth Amendment." Cuddihy finished his dissertation in 1990 and it remained unedited, unpublished, and largely unknown for several years-until Justice O'Connor …

Go to article

How United States V. Jones Can Restore Our Faith In The Fourth Amendment, Erica Goldberg Mar 2011

How United States V. Jones Can Restore Our Faith In The Fourth Amendment, Erica Goldberg

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

United States v. Jones, issued in January of this year, is a landmark case that has the potential to restore a property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to prominence. In 1967, the Supreme Court abandoned its previous Fourth Amendment framework, which had viewed the prohibition on unreasonable searches in light of property and trespass laws, and replaced it with a rule protecting the public’s reasonable expectations of privacy. Although the Court may have intended this reasonable expectations test to provide more protection than a test rooted in property law, the new test in fact made the Justices’ subjective views about …

Go to article

The U.S. Supreme Court Gets It Right In Arizona V. Gant: Justifications For Rules Protect Constitutional Rights, Shenequa L. Grey Jan 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court Gets It Right In Arizona V. Gant: Justifications For Rules Protect Constitutional Rights, Shenequa L. Grey

St. Thomas Law Review

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the justifications or rationales for legal principles form the basis for compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and that therefore, failure to comply with those justifications leads to unconstitutional searches and seizures. Strict compliance with the underlying justifications prevents the courts from circumventing the Constitution by establishing a rule, then expanding it beyond its intended purpose. This article demonstrates and reiterates that compliance with the underlying justifications for establishing rules is essential to protecting individual constitutional rights. In addressing these issues, Part I of this article gives …

Go to article

Disentangling Administrative Searches, Eve Brensike Primus Jan 2011

Disentangling Administrative Searches, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Everyone who has been screened at an international border, scanned by an airport metal detector, or drug tested for public employment has been subjected to an administrative search. Since September 11th, the government has increasingly invoked the administrative search exception to justify more checkpoints, unprecedented subway searches, and extensive wiretaps. As science and technology advance, the frequency and scope of administrative searches will only expand. Formulating the boundaries and requirements of administrative search doctrine is therefore a matter of great importance. Yet the rules governing administrative searches are notoriously unclear. This Article seeks to refocus attention on administrative searches and …

Go to article

Hanging On By A Thread: The Exclusionary Rule (Or What's Left Of It) Lives For Another Day, David A. Moran Jan 2011

Hanging On By A Thread: The Exclusionary Rule (Or What's Left Of It) Lives For Another Day, David A. Moran

Articles

Back when there was a Soviet Union, foreign intelligence officers would anxiously await the May Day parade in Moscow to see who would be standing next to the chairman of the Communist Party and who would be missing from the reviewing platform altogether. Since the Soviet government and the statecontrolled press published very little about what was really going on in the halls of state power, this was considered the most reliable way to determine who was in or out of favor and, by extension, how the domestic and foreign policies of the world's second most powerful country were likely …

Go to article

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi Jan 2011

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi

University of Colorado Law Review

This Article argues that it is time to overrule Mapp v. Ohio. It contends that the exclusionary rule is outdated because a tough deterrent sanction is difficult to reconcile with a criminal justice system where victims are increasingly seen to have a stake in criminal cases. The rule is also increasingly outdated in its epistemological assumption which insists officers act on "reasons" that they can articulate and which disparages actions based on "hunches" or "feelings." This assumption runs counter to a large body of neuroscience research suggesting that humans often "feel" or "sense" danger, sometimes even at a subconscious level, …

Go to article

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi Jan 2011

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi

Publications

This Article argues that it is time to overrule Mapp v. Ohio. It contends that the exclusionary rule is outdated because a tough deterrent sanction is difficult to reconcile with a criminal justice system where victims are increasingly seen to have a stake in criminal cases. The rule is also increasingly outdated in its epistemological assumption which insists officers act on "reasons" that they can articulate and which disparages actions based on "hunches" or "feelings." This assumption runs counter to a large body of neuroscience research suggesting that humans often "feel" or "sense" danger, sometimes even at a subconscious …

Go to article

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert Tsai, Nelson Tebbe Jan 2011

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert Tsai, Nelson Tebbe

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

his is a response to Jennifer E. Laurin, "Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence," 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011), which analyzes the Supreme Court's resort to tort-based concepts to limit the reach of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. We press three points. First, there are differences between a general and specific critique of constitutional borrowing. Second, the idea of convergence as a distinct phenomenon from borrowing has explanatory potential and should be further explored. Third, to the extent convergence occurs, it matters whether concerns of judicial administration or political reconstruction are driving doctrinal changes.

Go to article

The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renee Mcdonald Hutchins May 2010

The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renee Mcdonald Hutchins

Journal Articles

For more than two months beginning in late December of 2005, police officers in New York State continuously monitored the location and movements of Scott Weaver's van using a surreptitiously attached global positioning system ("GPS") device, known as a "Qball."' The reason Weaver was targeted for police surveillance has never been disclosed. 2 In addition, law enforcement made no attempt to justify the heightened scrutiny of Weaver by seeking the pre-authorization of a warrant from a neutral magistrate.3 Rather, for sixty-five days, the police subjected Weaver to intense surveillance without oversight, interruption, or explanation. 4 More than a year after …

Go to article

Mapp V. Ohio Revisited: A Law Clerk's Diary, Polly J. Price Jan 2010

Mapp V. Ohio Revisited: A Law Clerk's Diary, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

The 1960 Supreme Court Term laid the groundwork for the subsequent revolution in the relationship between state and federal law accomplished by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The "most famous search and seizure case in American history" - Mapp v. Ohio - would be decided that Term. Mapp held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" required the exclusion of evidence found through an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the states a rule that had previously applied only to federal law enforcement. Mapp became a pivotal chapter in the …

Go to article

The Irrelevancy Of The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Thomas K. Clancy Dec 2009

The Irrelevancy Of The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Thomas K. Clancy

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Since John Roberts Jr. became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, there has been a measurable decline in the number of cases addressing Fourth Amendment questions. This article examines the reasons for that decline and predicts the substantial elimination of Fourth Amendment litigation in the Roberts Court. The prediction is based on several premises, including the lack of interest of the Justices on the Court concerning search and seizures principles and two significant recent cases, Pearson v. Callahan and United States v. Herring, which presage a significant decline in the number of lower court cases addressing the merits of …

Go to article

The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps Dec 2009

The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part …

Go to article

The Return Of Reasonableness: Saving The Fourth Amendment From The Supreme Court, Melanie D. Wilson Jan 2008

The Return Of Reasonableness: Saving The Fourth Amendment From The Supreme Court, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Although there is no recipe for defining Fourth Amendment reasonableness, the Supreme Court produces its most anomalous Fourth Amendment outcomes when it decides "mixed" questions of reasonableness, assessing issues that turn on how ordinary, prudent citizens think and behave. The Court treats these mixed issues, combinations of fact and law, as if they raise purely legal questions. But mixed issues are more complex and require someone to determine historical facts, apply those facts to principles of Fourth Amendment law, and consider the totality of the circumstances, including taking into account community and cultural influences. The Supreme Court will take its …

Go to article

Garbage Pails And Puppy Dog Tails: Is That What Katz Is Made Of?, Aya Gruber Jan 2008

Garbage Pails And Puppy Dog Tails: Is That What Katz Is Made Of?, Aya Gruber

Publications

This Article takes the opportunity of the fortieth anniversary of Katz v. U.S. to assess whether the revolutionary case's potential to provide broad and flexible privacy protection to individuals has been realized. Answering this question in a circumspect way, the Article pinpoints the language in Katz that was its eventual undoing and demonstrates how the Katz test has been plagued by two principle problems that have often rendered it more harmful to than protective of privacy. The manipulation problem describes the tendency of conservative courts to define reasonable expectations of privacy as lower than the expectations society actually entertains. The …

Go to article

Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran Jan 2008

Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran

Articles

I have no idea whether my death will be noted in the New York Times. But if it is, I fear the headline of my obituary will look something like: "Professor Dies; Lost Hudson v. Michigan' in Supreme Court, Leading to Abolition of Exclusionary Rule." The very existence of this Symposium panel shows, I think, that my fear is well-grounded. On the other hand, I am not quite as fearful that Hudson foreshadows the complete overruling of Mapp v. Ohio2 and Weeks v. United States3 as I was when I published an article just three months after the Hudson decision …

Go to article

First Prev Next Last