Fourth Amendment Commons^™

The Conversational Consent Search: How “Quick Look” And Other Similar Searches Have Eroded Our Constitutional Rights, Alexander A. Mikhalevsky

Georgia State University Law Review

One area in which law enforcement agencies have stretched constitutional limits concerns the scope of a suspect’s consent to search his or her vehicle. Police forces across the country have tested the limits of consent by asking vague, conversational questions to suspects with the goal of obtaining a suspect’s consent to search, even though that individual may not want to allow the search or may not know that he or she has the right to deny consent.

Conversational phrases like “Can I take a quick look?” or “Can I take a quick look around?” have “emerg[ed] as . . . …

53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series, The Hon. Justice John Paul Stevens

Georgia State University Law Review

Remarks by the Honorable John Paul Stevens, Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the 53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series.

United States Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Charles Williams Jr., Defendant-Appellant: Brief Of Appellant, Gregory Davis, Patricia E. Roberts, Brittany Sadler, Andrew L. Steinberg, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Thomas W. Ports Jr.

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

The Case For Rational Basis Review Of General Suspicionless Searches And Seizures, Richard C. Worf

Touro Law Review

This article examines the constitutional status of suspicionless searches and seizures of groups- an exceedingly important question in the age of terror, and a subject recently brought back to the forefront by the searches of subway passengers in New York City. It draws on process theory to argue that when a legislature has authorized a group search or seizure, courts should generally apply rational basis review.

First, other areas of constitutional doctrine exhibit deep trust in the power of groups to protect their interests in political process, and there is no reason why fourth amendment doctrine should not do the …

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Smith, Jessica Miller

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Hall, Eric Pack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department, Koeiman V. New York, Gennaro Savastano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Burton, Diane Matero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Moore, Gennaro Savastano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - People V. Ruppert, Sardar Asadullah

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - People V. Willette, Mark Tsukerman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Policing Facts, Seth W. Stoughton

Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court’s understanding of police practices plays a significant role in the development of the constitutional rules that regulate officer conduct. As it approaches the questions of whether to engage in constitutional regulation and what form of regulation to adopt, the Court discusses the environment in which officers act, describes specific police practices, and explains what motivates officers. Yet the majority of the Court’s factual assertions are made entirely without support or citation, raising concerns about whether the Court is acting based on a complete and accurate perception. When it comes to policing facts, the Court too …

The Rapid Rise Of Delayed Notice Searches, And The Fourth Amendment “Rule Requiring Notice”, Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Pepperdine Law Review

This article documents the rapid rise of covert searching, through delayed notice search warrants, and argues that covert searching in its current form presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment’s “rule requiring notice.” Congress authorized these “sneak and peek” warrants in the USA Patriot Act, in 2001, and soon after added a reporting requirement to monitor this invasive search technique. Since 2001, the use of delayed notice search warrants has risen dramatically, from around 25 in 2002 to 5,601 in 2012, suggesting that “sneak and peek” searches are becoming alarmingly common. In fact, it is not at all clear whether true “sneak …

Recent Developments In The Use Of Excessive Force By Law Enforcement, Karen M. Blum, Jack Ryan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Yale Symposium: Unpacking Nsa's Global Problem, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Arizona V. Gant Is The Wrong Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Personal Curtilage: Fourth Amendment Security In Public, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

William & Mary Law Review

Do citizens have any Fourth Amendment protection from senseenhancing surveillance technologies in public? This Article engages a timely question as new surveillance technologies have redefined expectations of privacy in public spaces. It proposes a new theory of Fourth Amendment security based on the ancient theory of curtilage protection for private property. Curtilage has long been understood as a legal fiction that expands the protection of the home beyond the formal structures of the house. Based on custom and law protecting against both nosy neighbors and the government, curtilage was defined by the actions the property owner took to signal a …

Privacy In Social Media: To Tweet Or Not To Tweet?, Tara M. Breslawski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

It's Reasonable To Expect Privacy When Watching Adult Videos, Matthew Leonhardt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.