The Fourth Amendment as a Tool of Actuarial Justice: The “Special Needs” Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements

1997 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Vaughn ◽  
Rolando V. del Carmen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Fourth Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Managerial Efficiency ◽  
Lower Courts

This article applies the concept of actuarial justice to the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements. According to the United States Supreme Court, the “special needs” exception should only apply when the routine interests of law enforcement are not implicated. Lower courts, however, have been instrumental in extending the administrative search doctrine of “special needs” into the realm of criminal law enforcement. The article concludes that as part of the broader movement in criminal justice toward managerial efficiency, the “special needs” exception serves as a tool of actuarial justice by diminishing Fourth Amendment rights.

scholarly journals Trump v. Hawaii

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Spiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Trump Administration

In Trump v. Hawaii, the United States Supreme Court upheld admissions restrictions imposed by the Trump administration on nationals of certain countries for putative security reasons. In so doing, the Court's opinion reaffirmed judicial deference to the president on matters relating to immigration. Although the decision marked a Trump administration victory at the end of a protracted judicial clash, the lower courts are likely to continue operating as a check on aggressively restrictionist policies pursued by the administration on other fronts.

A Content Analysis of Post-Jones Federal Appellate Cases

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-308
Author(s):  
Christopher Totten ◽  
James Purdon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fourth Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Appellate Courts ◽  
Legal Test

The United States Supreme Court in 2012 in United States v. Jones changed the legal test for what constitutes a police search under the Fourth Amendment. After Jones, a search occurs when: (1) an individual’s privacy rights are violated (“Katz” test); and/or (2) an individual’s property is trespassed upon (“Jones” test). From 1967 until Jones, only the Katz test was used. In light of this significant change, this study explores two questions using a content analysis approach: (1) the choice of legal test used by federal appellate courts to decide the “search” question (i.e., the Jones test, Katz test, or both tests), and (2) these courts’ holding regarding whether a “search” occurred. Most of these courts are relying upon Jones in some fashion; however, Jones has not prevented these courts from frequently applying Katz. Though reliance on Jones alone has led to uniform determinations by courts of a “search” and hence enhanced Fourth Amendment protections, overall post-Jones there are nearly an equal number of courts finding a “search” and “no search.” When courts apply Katz alone to evaluate a search, they have held no search occurred. In sum, Jones’ impact on Fourth Amendment search law has been incremental and gradual.

The United States Supreme Court: Definitions of Obscenity

1972 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
Marc Schnall
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Current Test ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Average Person ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Definition Of

This article summarizes the activity of the United States Supreme Court in formulating and applying definitions of what constitutes obscenity. For almost ninety years, American courts applied a test of obscenity established by a British court in 1868. In 1957, after lower courts in the United States had expanded the British definition, the Supreme Court, in Roth v. United States, defined as obscene such material which, "to the average person, apply ing contemporary community standards," appealed to prurient interests and lacked redeeming social value. Between 1957 and 1966, the Court added several dimensions to its definition of obscenity. The current test of obscenity was framed in 1966 in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which reworded the Roth definition and included a third standard—namely, that the material must also be "patently offensive." This article examines not only the Supreme Court's actual definitions of obscenity but also the trends in these definitions and the Court's continual efforts to define and redefine obscenity.

Recent Legal Developments: Criminal Justice Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, 2,020 Term

2021 ◽  
pp. 073401682110595
Author(s):  
Craig Hemmens ◽  
Cortney Dalton ◽  
Christopher Dollar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fourth Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Eighth Amendment

In this paper we review and analyze the criminal justice-related decisions of the 2,020 term of the United States Supreme Court. We also provide a summary of the Court’s voting patterns and opinion authorship. Thirteen of the Court’s 57 decisions touched on criminal justice. There were significant decisions involving the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and federal criminal statutes. Each of these is discussed in turn.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document