Harper addresses four cases in search and seizure as well as several cases from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and from the various service courts. The cases are important to note and to understand, but none is revolutionary nor even fundamental; instead, they are restatements of existing law, which should make future application of the rules clearer.
Many scholars bemoan recent court decisions that all but abolish the Fourth Amendment in public schools. Both scholars and dissenting judges largely confine these protests to the impact upon students and rights within the schoolhouse gate, perhaps because courts themselves purport to limit their decisions to the school context. This Note looks critically at recent school-search jurisprudence with a different concern: that diluting the Fourth Amendment rights of students in public schools dilutes the Fourth Amendment rights of all Americans. It explores the interactions between school-search cases and other search cases and argues that these interactions produce a "Domino Effect"; as courts revise legal standards and show great deference for school searches in an effort to uphold them, t...
...IAThis case concerns the search of an apartment in Lexington, Kentucky. Police off... That is to say, in thevast majority of cases in which evidence is destroyed bypersons who are e...
The Supreme Court opens 2006 with two Fourth Amendment cases this month questioning the rules surrounding the execution of search warrants by law enforcement authorities. Hudson v. Michigan, which the justices will hear when the court reconvenes Jan. 9, questions whether police violated the Fourth Amendment "knock and announce rule" when they burst into a suspected cocaine dealer's home in Detroit.
In Hudson v. Michigan, the Supreme Court held that evidence need not be excluded despite the fact that the police had violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to knock and announce their presence before conducting a search. The Court said that the constitutional violation was not a but-for cause of the seizure; the police would have obtained the evidence even if they had knocked. Hudson's analysis threatens to withdraw the exclusionary remedy whenever the police have conducted a search in an unconstitutional manner-most notably, when they have failed to obtain a warrant before searching. The Court's decision is likely to withdraw the remedy in the cases in which it is most likely to work and to leave the police with little incentive to conduct searches properly. Even scholars critical ...
...In subsequent cases they simply ignored the historical concern with th...
Introduction . I. Search Engine Technology and Business. A. Technology. 1. Indexing . 2. Queries . 3. Results . 4. Content . B. Business. II. . A. Users' Interests. 1. Query Privacy . 2. Unbiased Results . B. Providers' Interests. 1. Minimizing Costs . 2. Avoiding Unfair Competition. 3. Prominent Placement in Results . C. Third Parties' Interests. 1. Ownership. 2. Reputation . 3. Privacy . 4. User Virtue . D. Search Engines' Interests. 1. Preventing Search Engine Optimization . 2. Preventing Click Fraud . 3. Innovation . 4. Competition . III. Interconnections in Search Engine Law. A. Claims Against Search Engines as Functional Substitutes. B. The Pros and Cons of Disclosure and Mandated Results. C. User Privacy Concerns Implicate Others' Interests. D. ...
... accurately describes the core, paradigm cases: a search engine is a service that helps its users...
Introduction - II. Teachers, don‘t leave them kids alone - A. America’s Most Important Function - B. Strip Searches - C. The United States Constitution Places Strict Constraints on the Strip Search of a Student - D. New Jersey v. T.L.O.: A Student’s Rights Under the Fourth Amendment - E. Challenging a Search of a Student’s Person: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Qualified Immunity - III. Safford unified school district v. redding: The Supreme Court speaks - IV. The twin pitfalls of silence and ambiguity - A. Reconciling Redding and T.L.O. - B. Distinct Elements of Justification - V. Ending the search for salvation: a warrant requirement - A. How Will It Work? - B. When Will It Work? - C. What Are Its Benefits? - D. Test Suite - VI. Conclusion
... purposes were unconstitutional searches. Among its actions, the District Court instructed ... as a matter of law under this Court's cases recognizing that "special needs" may, in certain e...
OLYMPIA The state Supreme Court, extending a line of civil liberties rulings, on Thursday held that the U.S. Constitution bars noncriminal search warrants without legislation or a court rule expressly allowing them. The court had previously held that the Washington State Constitution, with its strong privacy protections, doesn't allow so- called administrative search warrants in noncriminal cases, absent a state law or court rule authorizing the tactic. No such authority has been given.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
minoura | 5310 games | Simplex Solutions Inc. | County Of Elbert | Confederatie Bouw | La-touche | Lanfains | textiles | tribunales municipio estado miranda | principio procesal
