The Experts below are selected from a list of 1911 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Sherry F. Colb - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Innocence, Privacy, and Targeting in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
Columbia Law Review, 1996Co-Authors: Sherry F. ColbAbstract:Innocence, Privacy, and Targeting in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence offers a theory of the Fourth Amendment that incorporates valuable elements of two diametrically opposed approaches to the right against Unreasonable Searches. One approach says that only the innocent should benefit from this right, and the other says that innocence is completely irrelevant to the right. Colb proposes that innocence is highly relevant to one’s entitlement to privacy, the right against Unreasonable Searches, but that the guilty are entitled by the Fourth Amendment to be free of targeted intrusions that are unsupported by facts known to law enforcement, ex ante. When police Search culpably – in the absence of a legitimate ex ante evidentiary basis for doing so – they thus inflict a “targeting harm,” a type of procedural harm that occurs regardless of the target’s guilt or innocence. At the same time, innocent people uniquely suffer a “privacy harm” when their innocent privacy is invaded, regardless of police officers’ ex ante reasonableness and the corresponding lack of any governmental culpability. Colb’s “Innocence Plus Targeting” account of the Fourth Amendment accommodates powerful intuitions about police misconduct as well as about the injustice that many perceive in the suppression of incriminating evidence turned up during an Unreasonable Search. The Article concludes with implications of this model for Fourth Amendment law, remedies, and areas of doctrine outside the Fourth Amendment as well.
Nathan L. Essex - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Student privacy rights involving strip Searches
Education and the Law, 2005Co-Authors: Nathan L. EssexAbstract:The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protection of all citizens against Unreasonable Search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has affirmed that the basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against Unreasonable intrusive Searches by governmental officials. Since students possess constitutional rights and public school officials are considered governmental officials for Fourth Amendment purposes, privacy protection is afforded students in public schools within reasonable limits. A reasonable Search is one that clearly does not violate the constitutional rights of students. What is reasonable, however, depends on the context within which a Search occurs. Strip Searches involving students in public schools are the most intrusive form of all Searches. Extreme caution should be exercised by school officials regarding these types of Searches.
-
Intrusive Searches Can Prove Troublesome for Public School Officials
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies Issues and Ideas, 2003Co-Authors: Nathan L. EssexAbstract:Based on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733 (1985), public school officials acting in loco parentis (in place of parent) have the right to initiate a Search based on reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is established when school officials have some evidence regarding a particular situation, including background information on a student, that would lead them to believe that their Search would uncover a violation of school rules (Alexander and Alexander 1998). It is also established based on information received from students or school personnel; as long as the informant is known rather than anonymous and the information seems credible, administrative action will generally be supported by the courts. However, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects all citizens against Unreasonable Search and seizure. Because students enjoy the same constitutional rights as adults, they are granted protection against Unreasonable Search and seizure in public schools. School officials face the delicate task of balancing a student's individual right to Fourth Amendment protection against their duty to provide a safe and secure environment for all students--a major challenge in cases involving intrusive Searches.
Lloyd Hastings - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Marijuana Odor Perception: Studies Modeled from Probable Cause Cases
Law and Human Behavior, 2004Co-Authors: Richard L. Doty, Thomas Wudarski, David A. Marshall, Lloyd HastingsAbstract:The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects American citizens against Unreasonable Search and seizure without probable cause. Although law enforcement officials routinely rely solely on the sense of smell to justify probable cause when entering vehicles and dwellings to Search for illicit drugs, the accuracy of their perception in this regard has rarely been questioned and, to our knowledge, never tested. In this paper, we present data from two empirical studies based upon actual legal cases in which the odor of marijuana was used as probable cause for Search. In the first, we simulated a situation in which, during a routine traffic stop, the odor of packaged marijuana located in the trunk of an automobile was said to be detected through the driver's window. In the second, we investigated a report that marijuana odor was discernable from a considerable distance from the chimney effluence of diesel exhaust emanating from an illicit California grow room. Our findings suggest that the odor of marijuana was not reliably discernable by persons with an excellent sense of smell in either case. These studies are the first to examine the ability of humans to detect marijuana in simulated real-life situations encountered by law enforcement officials, and are particularly relevant to the issue of probable cause.
N. Khan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Constitutional Imperatives in Search and Seizure in Canadian Schools
1999Co-Authors: N. KhanAbstract:Introduction With the increasing presence of guns and drugs in public schools in Canada, the issue of school Searches and seizures has raised important questions. For example, do school authorities have the power to Search a pupil? If so, what are the circumstances in which a school official is allowed to carry out the Search? What are the safeguards so that the Search is not Unreasonable? What happens to the evidence obtained by an Unreasonable Search? Because of the Canadian Charter s provision that ‘Everyone has the right to be secure against Unreasonable Search or seizure,1 these issues have to be decided in this constitutional perspective.2
Ray Dowdy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Drugs, Strip Searches, and Educator Liability: Implications of Safford v. Redding
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies Issues and Ideas, 2010Co-Authors: David L. Stader, Margo B. Greicar, David W. Stevens, Ray DowdyAbstract:Abstract School administrators are expected to balance the need for school safety and good order with the rights of students to be free of Unreasonable Search of their person and property. This balance can be particularly difficult when over-the-counter or prescription drugs are involved. This article summarizes a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that considered the question of how far school administrators can go in their efforts to enforce a drug-free campus policy.
