1 First Circuit Prohibits Warrantless Search of Cellular Phones In United States v. Wurie, 1 a police officer, while performing routine surveillance, observed what he believed was an illegal drug transaction between Fred Wade and defendant Brima Wurie. 2 After brief questioning about the drug transaction by two officers, Wade admitted to buying the drugs from B. 3 The officers then notified a third officer, who was following Wurie in his car, and that officer arrested Wurie for distributing crack cocaine. 4 At the police station, officers took, among other things, two of the defendant s cellular phones; one of the phones repeatedly received calls from a number identified by the phone as my house, which could be seen in plain view by the officers. 5 The officers then opened the phone, revealing a wallpaper of a young woman holding a baby, and pressed a button to access the call log on the defendant s cellular phone, which, in turn, revealed the specific phone number labeled as my house. 6 The officers suspected that the defendant was lying about his address and involvement with the sale of drugs, so they researched the address associated with the phone number labeled as my house and went to that location. They arrived at an apartment and saw the young woman and baby that were pictured on the wallpaper of the cellular phone. 7 Officers eventually entered the apartment in an attempt to freeze it while they acquired a warrant, which ultimately led to the seizure of drugs, guns, and money. 8 Wurie was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, distribution of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. 9 Wurie filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his cellular phone. The district court denied the defendant s request, however, and the jury subsequently found Wurie guilty on all three counts. 10 Wurie appealed the lower court s decision, contending that the warrantless search of his cellular F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 2013 WL (U.S. Jan. 17, 2014) (No ). 2. Id. at Id. 4. Id. at Wurie, 728 F.3d at Id. 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. See United States v. Wurie, 612 F. Supp. 2d 104, 105 (D. Mass. 2009), rev d, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 2013 WL (U.S. Jan. 17, 2014) (No ). 10. Wurie, 728 F.2d at 2.
2 2014] CASE NOTE 13 phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the search conducted by the officers unjustifiably intruded upon his right to privacy. 11 The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. 12 Opposition to the British search and seizure methods inspired the Amendment; it served to protect the privacy rights of citizens against the discretionary powers employed during the colonial period. 13 Today, courts have continuously held that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless one of the few exceptions applies. 14 The Supreme Court carved out one of these exceptions in Chimel v. California, 15 holding that a search-incident-toa-lawful-arrest permits an arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction and to search the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items. 16 The Court affirmed this principle in United States v. Robinson, 17 holding that a warrantless search of a cigarette package on the defendant was valid and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. 18 The underlying policy justifications for this exception remained the same: officer safety and the preservation of evidence. 19 The warrantless search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception has been applied to most, if not all, of the objects that can be found on one s person. 20 In New 11. See id. at See U.S. CONST. amend. IV (limiting government s power to conduct reasonable searches and seizures); Ronald F. Wright, Note, The Civil and Criminal Methodologies of the Fourth Amendment, 93 YALE L.J. 1127, (1984) (evaluating searches and seizures under reasonableness test). 13. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 582 n.17, (1980) (claiming framers intended Fourth Amendment to protect against indiscriminate general warrants); see also Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 304 (1921) (claiming personal liberty, personal security, and private property as essence of Constitution); JACOB W. LANDYNSKI, SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THE SUPREME COURT: A STUDY IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION 19 (1966) (tracing Fourth Amendment development from events immediately preceding Revolutionary War); Tracey Maclin, The Complexity of the Fourth Amendment: A Historical Review, 77 B.U. L. REV. 925, 926 (1997) (claiming Fourth Amendment s roots arose from American colonists disapproval of British law enforcement practices). 14. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009) (claiming warrantless search unreasonable, unless exception present); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (ruling searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. ). Exceptions include the search incident-to-arrest exception and exigent-circumstances exception, among others. See Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (discussing search-incident-to- lawful-arrest exception); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51, 90 (1970) (holding [o]nly in exigent circumstances will the judgment of the police as to probable cause serve as a sufficient authorization for a search ) U.S. 752 (2009). 16. Id. at 763 (justifying search-incident-to-arrest exception for reasons of officer safety, preservation of evidence) U.S. 218 (1973). 18. See id. at But see United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 14 (1977) (announcing search incident to lawful arrest, by itself, not enough to overcome constitutional rights), abrogated by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991). 19. See Robinson, 414 U.S. at See Chelsea Oxton, Note, The Search Incident to Arrest Exception Plays Catch Up: Why Police May
3 14 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. II:12 York v. Belton, 21 the Supreme Court held that police may search a container on the arrestee s person because the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of the arrestee s privacy rights. 22 The Court reasoned that a container includes any object capable of holding another object, such as luggage, boxes, or bags. 23 This definition, however, is quite broad and includes more than just objects that can hold an arrestee s personal belongings. 24 Courts are split regarding the constitutionality of warrantless searches of cellular phones incident to a lawful arrest, with a majority of decisions upholding the searches. 25 In People v. Diaz, 26 the Supreme Court of California held that, under Robinson, a cellular phone could be searched incident to a lawful arrest without any further justification; the lawful arrest justified the search. 27 In United States v. Murphy, 28 the Fourth Circuit held that the warrantless search of the defendant s cellular phone was constitutional because of the need for officers to preserve evidence. 29 The Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Flores-Lopez, 30 agreed with this position, and held that officer safety justified a warrantless search of the defendant s cellular phone. 31 Conversely, in United States v. Park, 32 a federal judge in California likened the search of a cellular phone to a Chadwick-type search; the court held that once the police gain control of the phone, they no longer have the ability to search it without a warrant, absent exigent circumstances, because the defendant is no longer in possession of the object and it is not within his immediate control. 33 Moreover, the Supreme Court of Ohio held similarly in State v. Smith, 34 deciding that a cellular phone is unlike other closed containers because of the high expectation No Longer Search Cell Phones Incident to Arrest Without a Warrant, 43 CREIGHTON L. REV. 1157, 1158 (2010) ( Under the search incident to arrest exception, police officers may search the entire person of an arrestee, including any containers found on the arrestee, incident to a lawful arrest. ) U.S. 454 (1981), abrogated by Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct (2011). 22. See id. at ; see also Robinson, 414 U.S. at (upholding warrantless search of closed cigarette package). 23. See Belton, 453 U.S. at 460 n.4 (defining container for purposes of the rule). 24. See Margaret M. Lawton, Warrantless Searches and Smartphones: Privacy in the Palm of Your Hand?, 16 U. D.C. L. REV. 89, 91, 95, 118 (2012) (stating Supreme Court has broadly defined container ); Cynthia Lee, Package Bombs, Footlockers, and Laptops: What the Disappearing Container Doctrine Can Tell Us About the Fourth Amendment, 100 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1403, 1414 (2010) (explaining Supreme Court defined container much more expansively ). 25. See Wurie, 728 F.3d at 5 (citing examples). 26. People v. Diaz, 244 P.3d 501 (Cal. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 94 (2011). 27. See id. at 511. But see id. at 513 (Werdegar, J., dissenting) (claiming new electronic devices not analogous to packages or containers) F. 3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, Murphy v. United States, 556 U.S (2009). 29. See id. at 411 (holding search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception allows warrantless cellular phone search) F. 3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012). 31. Id. at No. CR SI., 2007 WL , at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2007). 33. See id. at * N.E.2d 949 (Ohio 2009), cert. denied, Ohio v. Smith, 131 S. Ct. 102 (2010).
4 2014] CASE NOTE 15 of privacy in one s phone. 35 Lastly, the Florida Supreme Court in Smallwood v. State 36 utilized the approach in Arizona v. Gant and declared that once a cellular phone is removed, there is neither a need for officer safety nor a chance that the defendant can destroy the evidence. 37 Applying these factors to Wurie, the First Circuit reversed the district court s decision and held that a warrantless search of a cellular phone, incident to a lawful arrest, violated Wurie s Fourth Amendment rights. 38 The court determined that a cellular phone was unlike any other container because of its ability to hold and store highly personal information, such as addresses, photographs, videos, and messages. 39 The court wrote that the government did not prove that officers needed to search the cellular phone under either of the two underlying policy justifications of the exception officer safety and the preservation of evidence. 40 There was no officer safety justification because once officers realized the phone as well as the data inside it was not, in fact, a weapon or could harm them, officers had no reason to further inspect it. 41 There was no evidence preservation justification, according to the court, because officers could have protected the phone from outside interference without accessing it. 42 Indeed, the court reasoned that if there were a genuine threat that the phone s content could be wiped or overwritten, then the police would routinely use methods of preservation to counteract such threats. Thus, the court saw the risk of evidence destruction as only theoretical. 43 The court then recognized that the Supreme Court insists on bright-line rules in the Fourth Amendment context. 44 Based upon this, the court developed a brightline rule that warrantless searches of cellular phone data are categorically unlawful under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. 45 The creation of the Fourth Amendment was spurred by its drafters intent to create a system that protects privacy interests and personal freedom, a system that, in current times, shields citizens from general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search of a cellular phone intrudes upon 35. See id. at 955; Eunice Parker, Traffic Ticket Reasonable, Cell Phone Search Not: Applying the Search-Incident-to-Arrest Exception to the Cell Phone as Hybrid, 60 DRAKE L. REV. 429, 444 (2012) So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2013). 37. See id. at 735 (requiring warrant to search cellular phone after physical separation). 38. See United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 2013 WL (U.S. Jan. 17, 2014) (No ). 39. Id. at See id. at See id. at Wurie, 728 F.3d at 11. Methods of protecting the contents of a cellular phone include: turning off the phone and removing the battery; putting the phone in a Faraday enclosure, which shields the interior of the phone from external electromagnetic radiation; and copying the entire cellular phone s contents for the purposes of evidence preservation. See id. 43. See id. 44. Id. at See id.
5 16 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. II:12 these essential civil liberties. Although capable of holding something else under the loose Belton definition of a container a cellular phone has many more capabilities and implicates unique and different privacy concerns. The Supreme Court in Belton could not have imagined the technological developments the future would bring: electronic devices are capable of containing someone s entire personal life, for example, many today hold pictures of loved ones, videos of friends and family, access to home security cameras, and private messages. As Justice Brandeis once wrote, constitutional provisions must have the capacity of adaptation to a changing world. 46 Once a cellular phone is accessed, police officers are no longer searching a container; rather, they are entering into the heart of a person s private life, areas that the founding fathers intended to protect through the Fourth Amendment. With the rapid change and evolution of technology, allowing warrantless searches of cellular phones today could lead to similar searches of future devices with capabilities and privacy concerns far beyond today s cellular phones. A line must be drawn somewhere, and the court correctly drew it at the warrantless search of a cellular phone under these factual circumstances. The alternative to the First Circuit s decision in Wurie allowing courts to apply multi-factor, fact-specific tests to determine the validity of such searches would be very difficult for police officers to apply in the field. The First Circuit s approach not only comports with the underlying policy rationales of the search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception, it also provides easy to follow guidelines for the police. First, when neither officer safety nor evidence preservation is an issue, officers must obtain a warrant under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. Second, if the police have probable cause that a cellular phone contains evidence of a crime and have an immediate and compelling need to act quickly and are unable to obtain a warrant, then the exigent circumstances exception is applicable and they can proceed with the warrantless search. Gant and its progeny have stated these principles time and time again, and there is no need to depart from such a rule, especially as it applies to highly personal and intimate information containers, to wit, cellular phones. The categorical approach leaves officers with a readily administrable rule to get a warrant first and search later. People s privacy interests vastly outweigh this undemanding step. Thus, the First Circuit s holding in Wurie was correct, and courts should continue to require that police officers go through the requisite legal strictures in order to break the seal of privacy. A cellular phone is not analogous to a container. People are increasingly reliant on cellular phones to communicate, research, and plan their lives, and access to cellular phones contents paints a subjective picture of our life Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 472 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 47. Bryan A. Stillwagon, Note, Bringing an End to Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, 42 GA. L. REV. 1165, 1201 (2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
6 2014] CASE NOTE 17 Because the privacy interests people have in the containers and cellular phones they carry are so different, this is a case where the law has to [adapt] to a changing world. 48 The Wurie case will by no means end the debate on warrantless searches of cellular phones. In fact, the government filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari on January 17, Currently, police officers have to resolve conflicting constitutional rulings based on the region in which they are policing. Until the Supreme Court resolves these issues, courts will continue to decide these types of Fourth Amendment cases without uniformity. Anthony J. Gambale 48. Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 472 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 49. See United States v. Wurie, 2013 WL (U.S., Jan. 17, 2014) (granting certiorari); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (No ), 2013 WL , at *10-11.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO H. GLASCO, Defendant. Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2010-CF-021349-AXXX-XX. February 24, 2011. John M. Harris, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCO THOMAS MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States
CALLING FOR A STANDARD: WHY COURTS SHOULD APPLY A NEW BALANCING TEST IN CELL PHONE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST Drew Liming* You have just been stopped for driving with a revoked license. A police officer
Containing Cell Phones? Restoring the Balance Between Privacy and Government Interests in Fourth Amendment Cell Phone Searches and Seizures Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience.
FOREWORD: ACCOUNTING FOR TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ORIN S. KERR * Changing technology presents a recurring problem for lawmakers. Laws are enacted with a background understanding of the facts. When those facts
A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? Bryan R. Lemons Senior Legal Instructor It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process,
[Cite as State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6426.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6426.] Search and seizure Search incident
CASE 0:14-cr-00295-SRN-JSM Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Case No. 14-cr-295 (SRN/JSM) Plaintiff, v. Martel Javell Einfeldt,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, v. ID. No. 1309003133 ALLEN CHRISTOPHER, Defendant. ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this 17th day of March, 2014, IT
Case 1:07-cr-00014-BLW Document 24 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Case No. CR-07-14-S-BLW Plaintiff, ) ) MEMORANDUM
United States v. Flores-Lopez: Protecting Privacy Rights in Cell Phone Searches Incident to Arrest I. INTRODUCTION The Founders carefully drafted the Fourth Amendment to provide protection for persons,
United States of America, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No. 13-107(DSD/FLN) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Michael Duane Hoffman, This matter is before the court upon the objection by
Case Note CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Can You Hear Me Now? : Warrantless Cell Phone Searches and the Fourth Amendment; People v. Diaz, 244 P.3d 501 (Cal. 2011) Joshua Eames* Introduction On April 25, 2007, Gregory
BYU Law Review Volume 2013 Issue 5 Article 7 2-28-2014 An Unreasonable Expectation? Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones Michael V. Hinckley Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview
Aftermath of Arizona v Gant Mark M. Neil Senior Attorney National Traffic Law Center National District Attorneys Association A Little History - Facts of Gant 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 330 Alexandria,
774 OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus FLORIDA v. THOMAS certiorari to the supreme court of florida No. 00 391. Argued April 25, 2001 Decided June 4, 2001 While officers were investigating marijuana sales and
To Serve and Protect: Thornton v. United States and the Newly Anemic Fourth Amendment In Thornton v. United States,' the United States Supreme Court further weakened the protection afforded by the Fourth
Campbell Law Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Fall 2010 Article 4 January 2010 Cell Phone - A "Weapon" of Mass Discretion Mark L. Mayakis Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2263 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Greer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ORLANDO INGRAM, No. 460, 2014 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in v. and for Kent County STATE OF DELAWARE,
No. 02-1019 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, v. RODNEY JOSEPH GANT, On Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Petitioner, Respondent. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
05/14/04 See News Release 043 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 04-KK-0273 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SEAN STRANGE, TALBERT PORTER On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AARON BRANDON LINGARD Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014 Appeal from the
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1959 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Andre
OCTOBER TERM, 1992 147 Syllabus EL VOCERO de PUERTO RICO et al. v. PUERTO RICO et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of puerto rico No. 92 949. Decided May 17, 1993 Puerto Rico
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ` DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff, vs. JIMMIE DALE JACKSON, File No: 04085182 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant. Defendant
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 63 Spring 2013 Issue 3 Be Reasonable! Limit Warrantless Smart Phone Searches to Gant s Justification for Searches Incident to Arrest Sara M. Corradi Comment Be Reasonable!
No. 11 3107 Case: 11-3107 Document: 28 Filed: 05/02/2012 Pages: 5 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
MEMO DATE: April 18, 2013 FROM: J.H.B. Wilson, General Counsel RE: McNeely v. Missouri (SCOTUS, 2013) This decision was released April 17, 2013. An abridged version of the Court s Syllabus can be found
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2013 BRANDON MCBRIDE, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Amendment V. Defendant may not be compelled
AUGUST 15, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE August Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1.
THE NOT A SEARCH GAME JOHN F. STINNEFORD * The privacy versus security discussion is not just about the Fourth Amendment it involves policy considerations as well. The Fourth Amendment concerns frame the
[Cite as State v. Dent, 2011-Ohio-1235.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94823 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. HAROLD DENT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
It s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer email@example.com As Rep. Paul Stam sees it an injustice to the people of North Carolina has been righted
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued June 8, 2016 Decided July 5, 2016
WHEN CAN THE POLICE CONDUCT A NEBRASKA SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF YOUR HOME? A man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion. Petersen Criminal Defense Law Regardless
Present: All the Justices DARRIO L. COST OPINION BY v. Record No. 070496 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 29, 2008 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,
STATE OF TENNESSEE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Searches and Arrests on School Property February 24, 2014 Opinion No. 14-21 QUESTIONS 1. Do public school students have any expectation of privacy in their
AB 539 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015 Counsel: Sandra Uribe ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair AB 539 (Levine) As Introduced February 23, 2015 SUMMARY: Authorizes the issuance
IDENTICAL CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE: WHAT IS A STATE COURT TO DO? THE OHIO CASE OF STATE V. ROBINETTE by Marianna Brown Bettman * We are in the era of rediscovery of state constitutional law. In Ohio, there
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1296 Shawn Michael O'Connell, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed January 12, 2015 Affirmed Bjorkman, Judge Hennepin County District
Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
September 2014, Volume 1 Newsletter Editor: Professor Louis Roy The instructors and staff of Southern Arkansas University Behavioral and Social Science Department and the Criminal Justice program would
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NARANJIBHAI PATEL and RAMILABEN PATEL, No. 08-56567 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cv-01571- DSF-AJW CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHELLE BOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D08-3251 STATE OF FLORIDA,
CHAPTER Policing: Legal Aspects Changing Legal Climate The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power. Changing Legal Climate 1960 s The U.S. Supreme Court clarified
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANNY TEAGUE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-10276 D.C. No. 1:05-cr-00495- LJO-1 OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 97-0695 Complete Title of Case: Petition for Review Filed STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. THEODORE A. QUARTANA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2000 Tylor John Neuman, petitioner, Respondent,
NO. 13-132 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID LEON RILEY, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District,
[Cite as State v. Rogers, 2014-Ohio-103.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26877 Appellee v. SHANE E. ROGERS Appellant APPEAL
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-13 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Sin Santo
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634
Prado Navarette Et Al. v. California, 572 U.S. (April 22, 2014) An Analysis Brandon Hughes Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Alabama Office of Prosecution Services alabamaduiprosecution.com A question
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1408 United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Aaron Jay
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDRES LOPEZ-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellee. No. 11-50551 D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01507-JLS-1 OPINION
Legal Update Safe Schools, Cell Phones, and the Fourth Amendment Copyright 2009 by NASRO. Reprinted with permission. By Bernard James Professor of Law Pepperdine University firstname.lastname@example.org Reform
Case: 15-12302 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
TORT LIABILITY & GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Tort Liability & Governmental Immunity Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) A deputy who undertakes to render assistance to a citizen must do so with reasonable
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR CELL TOWER RECORDS MAGISTRATE NO. H-15-136M UNDER 18 U.S.C. 2703(D) OPINION On February 10, 2015
Member, National Conference of Law Reviews UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW FORUM VOLUME 41 Fall 2010 NUMBER ONE RECENT DEVELOPMENT: GARNER V. STATE By: Mary Lynn Denholm GARNER v. STATE: AN OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC SMITH, a/k/a Capone, a/k/a Pone, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KENNETH DALE GOOCH, No. 06-30645 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. CR-04-00262-WFN Defendant-Appellant. OPINION
Supreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions The Supreme Court Holds That EEOC s Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Judicial Review, Albeit Narrow SUMMARY A unanimous Supreme
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
Case 106-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GUSTAVO VILLANUEVO-SOTELO, Defendant. CRIMINAL
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 27, 2015 S14A1625. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE. HINES, Presiding Justice. Following a bench trial, John Cletus Williams was convicted of driving under the influence
reau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com WORLD DATA PROTECTION REPORT >>> News and analysis of data protection developments around the world. For the latest updates, visit www.bna.com
Case: 11-31140 Document: 00512132067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 1, 2013 UNITED
CHALLENGING CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATIONS I. Challenging Predicates for Career Offender! The Basic Rule for Career Offender 4B1.1 A defendant is a career offender if: 1. The defendant is at least 18 years
No. 293 June 24, 2015 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEREMY MICHAEL HAYES, Defendant-Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 093367FE; A148649
The Effective Use of School Resource Officers: The Constitutionality of School Searches and Interrogations By Christopher Z. Campbell During the past several years, school resource officers (SROs) have
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) No. SC91850 Appellant, ) ) vs. ) ) TYLER G. MCNEELY ) ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY The Honorable Benjamin
YOUTH RIGHTS MANUAL Youth Rights Manual Police Interaction: On and Off Campus Last Updated January 2010 ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 8306 HOUSTON, TX 77288 T/ 713.942.8146 F/ 713.942.8966 WWW.ACLUTX.ORG