DOCSLIB.ORG

The Century of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Doctrine? That Depends on Precisely What Question One Asks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Century of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Doctrine? That Depends on Precisely What Question One Asks Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 100 Article 10 Issue 3 Summer Summer 2010 The uprS eme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: The eC ntury of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Doctrine Thomas Y. Davies Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Thomas Y. Davies, The uS preme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: The eC ntury of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Doctrine, 100 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 933 (2010) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/10/10003-0933 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 100, No. 3 Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Y. Davies Printed in U.S.A. THE SUPREME COURT GIVETH AND THE SUPREME COURT TAKETH AWAY: THE CENTURY OF FOURTH AMENDMENT “SEARCH AND SEIZURE” DOCTRINE BY THOMAS Y. DAVIES∗ [I]ndependent tribunals of justice . will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the [Bill of Rights]. —James Madison** I. INTRODUCTION The century during which the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology has been published roughly matches the lifespan of Fourth Amendment “search and seizure” doctrine. The Journal appeared in 1910, while it is generally (and correctly) accepted that the 1914 decision Weeks v. United States1 marks the birth of the modern Fourth Amendment.2 ∗ Elvin E. Overton Distinguished Professor of Law and National Alumni Association Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law. B.A. (1969), University of Delaware; M.A., J.D. (1975), Ph.D. (political science) (1980), Northwestern University. The author thanks Wesley M. Oliver and George C. Thomas III for comments on a draft of this article, and also thanks his colleague Sibyl Marshall for assistance in locating fugitive sources. He remains solely responsible for all opinions or errors. In addition to his academic articles on search and seizure topics, the author appeared “of counsel” and assisted with the defendants’ brief on reargument in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), and did likewise in Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990). He has also testified before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in opposition to legislative proposals to curtail the operation of the exclusionary rule. ** 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 440 (J. Gales ed. 1834) (speech by James Madison to the House of Representatives Proposing a Bill of Rights, June 8, 1789). 1 232 U.S. 383 (1914). 2 See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973) (“Because the rule requiring exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment was first enunciated in Weeks v. United States . it is understandable that virtually all of this Court’s search-and-seizure law has been developed since that time.”). 933 934 THOMAS Y. DAVIES [Vol. 100 Unsurprisingly, the Journal has published many articles on search and seizure issues since that time.3 However, the two stories have now diverged. The Journal continues to be a vibrant institution, but over roughly the last four decades the continuing conservative majority of the justices of the Supreme Court have reduced Fourth Amendment doctrine to little more than a rhetorical apparition. Hence, it is appropriate to refer to “the” century of search and seizure doctrine. Although it is unclear whether the justices will refrain from explicitly ending enforcement of constitutional limits on government arrest and search powers, they have already drained those limits of almost all of their practical content. And, notwithstanding the usual clichés regarding historical pendulums (where does such nonsense come from?), it seems quite unlikely that destruction will be reversed. My assignment for this Symposium is to tell the story of the invention, development, and dismantling of Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine over the last century. Of course, readers will likely already be familiar with at least the landmarks. Hence, my ambition is to broadly sketch out what might be called the trajectory of search and seizure doctrine while at least beginning to link that story to the larger history of the Supreme Court itself—that is, to the shifting concerns that motivated the justices as the Court’s membership and the politics of criminal procedure changed. The Fourth Amendment reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.4 It is fashionable to lament the maddeningly cryptic character of the Fourth Amendment’s text5 as well as the confused or unmoored state of 3 A word search of the titles of articles and comments published in the Journal indicates that the first search and seizure piece appeared in 1947. Thereafter, pieces on constitutional search and arrest issues began to appear more frequently, especially after the Journal instituted an annual review of Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s. A large proportion of the cases discussed in the latter part of this article have been the subject of such commentary. Authors of search and seizure articles in the Journal have included many of the leading commentators including, to name only a few, Francis Allen, Joseph Grano, Fred Inbau, Yale Kamisar, and Wayne LaFave. 4 U.S. CONST. amend. IV. 5 See, e.g., Anthony G. Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 MINN. L. REV. 349, 353-54 (1974) (characterizing the text as “brief, vague, general[, and] unilluminating”). 2010] CENTURY OF “SEARCH AND SEIZURE” DOCTRINE 935 search and seizure doctrine.6 Indeed, those complaints may seem painfully obvious if one attempts to systematically set out the rationales and content of current search and seizure doctrine and to then relate that doctrine to the text. However, such doctrinal incoherence should hardly come as a surprise. If the professional pretense that the law develops through judicial discovery of the true meaning of a text or of the internal logic of principles and precedents was ever tenable, it surely no longer is. Instead, the basic contention advanced by the legal realists more than a half century ago—that textual interpretations and doctrinal conceptions are shaped by the outcomes that judges seek to justify far more than the other way around—is patently obvious. Indeed, the realists’ insight provides a particularly powerful explanation of Supreme Court decisions regarding ideologically charged topics such as criminal procedure.7 Although the potential for appellate review means that lower court judges are constrained to hew to the legal doctrine set out by the high court to some significant degree, the justices of the Supreme Court are not similarly confined. Perhaps because no other institution has the power to review constitutional rulings by the Supreme Court,8 the justices’ behavior often resembles that of a vote-casting legislature at least as much as a court in the usual sense.9 Indeed, the case could be made that the history of constitutional law has been largely (one might be tempted to say merely) the story of who held the fifth swing vote when decisions were made. However, a realist perspective does not go so far as to claim that legal doctrine does not matter at all. The public expects judicial decisions to be 6 See, e.g., Akhil Reed Amar, Fourth Amendment First Principles, 107 HARV. L. REV. 757, 759 (1994) (describing Fourth Amendment doctrine as “rudderless and badly off course”). 7 For a still classic example of the legal realist perspective on the Supreme Court, see FRED RODELL, NINE MEN: A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT FROM 1790-1955 (1955). 8 Although the Court’s constitutional rulings are unreviewable in the short term, it has long been evident that the course of Supreme Court decisions ultimately follows public opinion, albeit with a sometimes considerable lag-time. See, e.g., ROBERT A. DAHL, A PREFACE TO DEMOCRATIC THEORY 105-11 (1956) (observing, with regard to judicial review, that the Supreme Court might delay but would not stop “a persistent law making majority”). 9 The tendency of Supreme Court justices to distort existing doctrine to produce the desired results is not a recent development. Rather, the justices have been revising the Constitution almost from the beginnings of the Supreme Court. I hope to publish an article in the near future that will document that the Marshall Court concocted the famous claim of unconstitutionality in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), by deliberately evading the then-settled understanding that mandamus was an inherent superintending power of the supreme court in a country or state, and thus imposed a novel meaning on the limits on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction” in Article III of the Constitution that the Framers would not have imagined. 936 THOMAS Y. DAVIES [Vol. 100 justified in terms of precedent and principle, and also expects that the justices usually should change the law incrementally. Thus, because the justices seek to provide public rationales for their rulings, the course of doctrinal development is shaped to a significant degree by the opportunities or weaknesses that the justices perceive in existing doctrine. Hence, in much the same way that the course of a stream seeks out weaker strata, the rationales in opinions (which, of course, do not necessarily reflect the actual motivations for the justices’ votes) often exploit the state of the existing doctrinal terrain.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Equal Protection and Moral Circumstance: Accounting for Constitutional Basics
    Fordham Law Review Volume 59 Issue 4 Article 2 1991 Equal Protection and Moral Circumstance: Accounting for Constitutional Basics Donald E. Lively Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Donald E. Lively, Equal Protection and Moral Circumstance: Accounting for Constitutional Basics, 59 Fordham L. Rev. 485 (1991). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol59/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EQUAL PROTECTION AND MORAL CIRCUMSTANCE: ACCOUNTING FOR CONSTITUTIONAL BASICS DONALD E. LIVELY* INTRODUCTION 8 INCE its ratification in 1868, the equal protection guarantee' has been notable for its underachievement. The fourteenth amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War to secure the citizenship and basic rights of those individuals whose humanity the Constitution's origi- nal framers bartered away.2 The amendment also empowered Congress to enforce its provisions through appropriate legislation.' In its first test after ratification,4 however, the fourteenth amendment's potential for challenging official discrimination was significantly cur- tailed. The Supreme Court effectively trimmed the privileges and immu- nities clause to the point that it has never operated as a meaningful check upon exercises of state power.' Although initially determining that the * Professor, College of Law, University of Toledo; A.B., University of California, Berkeley; M.S., Northwestern University; J.D., University of California, Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of IOWA No. 17-1369 Filed December
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 17-1369 Filed December 19, 2018 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TODD JUNIOR LANDIS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David N. May, (suppression) and Donna L. Paulsen (trial), Judges. A defendant appeals his judgment and sentence for operating while intoxicated and possession of a controlled substance, third offense. CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCING ORDER VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ. 2 TABOR, Judge. Todd Landis challenges his convictions for operating while intoxicated (OWI) and possession of a controlled substance, third offense, enhanced by his habitual-offender status. Landis contends the district court should have excluded the marijuana police took from his pocket thirty minutes before arresting him for OWI. The court found the marijuana admissible under the search-incident-to- arrest exception to the warrant requirement and the inevitable-discovery doctrine. We agree with the court’s reliance on inevitable discovery. The State proved jail personnel would have found the contraband during the OWI booking process. Landis also challenges his sentence. He alleges the district court gave only “boilerplate” reasons for incarceration. To the contrary, the court explained its rationale, emphasizing Landis’s prior convictions and “experience on probation.” As a result, we can review its exercise of discretion and affirm the concurrent prison terms. On Landis’s final issue, we remand for entry of a corrected sentencing order assessing the costs of his dismissed simple-misdemeanor charge to the State.
    [Show full text]
  • AP Government: Due Process & Roe V. Wade
    Social Studies Virtual Learning AP Government: Due Process & Roe v. Wade April 13, 2020 AP Government Lesson: April 13, 2020 Objective: LOR 3.B Explain the extent which states are limited by the due process clause from infringing upon individual rights. Warm Up: Write down your answer the following question. There are no right or wrongs here, but this is the focus of the lesson today! What is the right to privacy? What are 3 aspects of everyday life that it includes? Lesson: Roe v. Wade As this is a required case for the test, there are some ideas that are important to remember. Please write these down in your own words so you know what they are. Term Definition Due process The 14th Amendment clause guaranteeing that no state clause shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause to provide for “selective incorporation” of amendments into the states, meaning that neither the states nor the federal government may abridge individual rights protected by the Constitution. Term Definition “Penumbra Derived from the Latin for “partial shadow.” The Supreme of privacy” Court has ruled that several amendments in the Bill of Rights cast a “penumbra” of the right to privacy, although the right to privacy itself is never explicitly named. For example, the Court has interpreted that the 4th Amendment right of the people to be secure in their houses from unreasonable searches and seizures implies a right to privacy in the home. Right to The right to be “left alone,” or to be free of government privacy scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of OHIO ------: UNITED STATES of AMERICA, : Case No
    Case: 1:16-cr-00309-JG Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/18/17 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------- : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 1:16-CR-309 : Plaintiff, : : v. : OPINION & ORDER : [Resolving Doc. 44] KRISTOPHER L. COURTNEY, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On October 6, 2016, Defendant Kristopher L. Courtney filed a motion to supress and for return of seized property.1 The Court held a suppression hearing on November 21, 2016. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. On November 29, 2016, a jury found Defendant Courtney guilty of one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl, two counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of managing a drug premises.2 On December 13, 2016, Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, or in the alternative for a new trial.3 Defendant Courtney renews the arguments the Court found unconvincing in his motion to suppress. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendant Courtney’s motion. A. Legal Standard Defendant Courtney moves for judgment of acquittal. A court may grant such a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 only where “the evidence is insufficient to sustain 1 Doc. 11. Defendant also filed two supplemental motions. Docs. 17, 26. The Government responded. Docs. 20, 27. Defendant replied. Doc. 28. 2 Doc. 40. 3 Doc. 44. The Government opposes. Doc. 46. Case: 1:16-cr-00309-JG Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/18/17 2 of 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Reprinted for private circulation from THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Vol. 37, No.4, Summer 1970 Copyright 1970 by the University of Chicago l'RINTED IN U .soA. Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H. OakS;- The exclusionary rule makes evidence inadmissible in court if law enforcement officers obtained it by means forbidden by the Constitu­ tion, by statute or by court rules. The United States Supreme Court currently enforces an exclusionary rule in state and federal criminal, proceedings as to four major types of violations: searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and' sixth amendments, identification testimony obtained in violation of these amendments, and evidence obtained by methods so shocking that its use would violate the due process clause.1 The ex­ clusionary rule is the Supreme Court's sole technique for enforcing t Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; Executive Director-Designate, The American Bar Foundation. This study was financed by a three-month grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the United States Department of Justice. The fact that the National Institute fur­ nished financial support to this study does not necessarily indicate the concurrence of the Institute in the statements or conclusions in this article_ Many individuals assisted the author in this study. Colleagues Hans Zeisel and Franklin Zimring gave valuable guidance on analysis, methodology and presentation. Colleagues Walter J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Today: the Demands of the Fourth Amendment, Nix, and Murray, and the Disagreement Among the Federal Circuits, 13 BYU J
    Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 13 | Issue 1 Article 6 5-1-1998 The nevI itable Discovery Doctrine Today: The Demands of the Fourth Amendment, Nix, and Murray, and the Disagreement Among the Federal Circuits Troy E. Golden Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, and the Fourth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Troy E. Golden, The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Today: The Demands of the Fourth Amendment, Nix, and Murray, and the Disagreement Among the Federal Circuits, 13 BYU J. Pub. L. 97 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol13/iss1/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Today: The Demands of the Fourth Amendment, Nix, and Murray, and the Disagreement Among the Federal Circuits · I. INTRODUCTION: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS This comment explores the most recently developed exception to the exclusionary rule-the inevitable discovery doctrine. Before discussing this exception, it will be helpful to briefly explain the exclusionary rule. The judiciary created exclusionary rule prohibits the state from using evi­ dence obtained through police misconduct. Police misconduct includes the violation of a criminal defendant's Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights. Generally, the exclusionary rule operates by excluding all illegally obtained evidence from being introduced in a criminal trial, whether ob­ tained directly (primary evidence) or indirectly (derivative evidence) from the police misconduct.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Two Arguments Against the Exclusionary Rule: the Historical Error and the Comparative Myth, 32 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 32 | Issue 4 Article 4 Fall 9-1-1975 A Critique Of Two Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule: The iH storical Error And The Comparative Myth Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., A Critique Of Two Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule: The Historical Error And The Comparative Myth, 32 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 881 (1975), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol32/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Critique of Two Arguments Against the Exclusionary Rule: The Historical Error and The Comparative Myth DONALD E. WILKES, JR.* Introduction "The great body of the law of evidence consists of rules that oper- ate to exclude relevant evidence."' The most controversial of these rules are those which prevent the admission of probative evidence because of the irregular manner in which the evidence was obtained. Depending on whether the method of obtaining violated a provision of positive law, irregularly obtained evidence' may be separated into two classes. Evidence obtained by methods which meet legal requirements but contravene some moral or ethical principle is un- fairly obtained evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • POV Fall 2015
    POINT of VIEW A publication of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office Nancy E. O'Malley, District Attorney In this issue Suppression Exceptions Prolonged traffic stops Miranda warnings before booking Questioning minors Barricading multiple motorists Google Earth images as evidence Fall 2015 This edition of Point of View Point of View is dedicated to the memory of Since 1970 Sergeant Scott Lunger Hayward Police Department who was killed in the line of duty on July 22, 2015 Contents ARTICLES 1 Suppression Exceptions The exclusionary rule has evolved. Now, evidence obtained during an illegal search or seizure should rarely be suppressed unless officers intentionally violated the law or were oblivious. Copyright © 2015 Alameda County District Attorney RECENT CASES Executive Editor 18 Rodriguez v. United States Nancy E. O’Malley Does a traffic stop become unlawful if prolonged for a K9 sniff? District Attorney 21 People v. Elizalde Writer and Editor When an arrestee is booked into jail, must deputies obtain a Mark Hutchins Miranda waiver before asking about his gang affiliation? 23 In re Elias V. A California court writes a contentious opinion about how officers interrogate suspects. 26 U.S. v. Paetsch Point of View Online Did officers have grounds to barricade 20 cars on a roadway because a fleeing bank robber was probably in one of them? Featuring new and archived If so, was the subsequent detention of the robber unduly articles and case reports, plus prolonged? updates, alerts, and forms. www.le.alcoda.org/publications 28 U.S. v. Lizzarraga-Tirado Does a Google Earth satellite image constitute inadmissible hearsay? If not, does it become hearsay if it includes computer- generated markers? FEATURES 29 The Changing Times • Volume 43 Number 3• Point of View is published in January, May, and 31 War Stories September.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters
    Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law April 24, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41252 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters Summary The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that “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.” In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court declared that statements of an accused, given during a custodial interrogation, could not be introduced in evidence in criminal proceedings against him, unless he were first advised of his rights and waived them. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court held that the Miranda exclusionary rule was constitutionally grounded and could not be replaced by a statutory provision making all voluntary confessions admissible. In New York v. Quarles, the Court recognized a “limited” “public safety” exception to Miranda, but has not defined the exception further. The lower federal courts have construed the exception narrowly in cases involving unwarned statements concerning the location of a weapon possibly at hand at the time of an arrest. The Supreme Court has yet to decide to what extent Miranda applies to custodial interrogations conducted overseas. The lower federal courts have held that the failure of foreign law enforcement officials to provide Miranda warnings prior to interrogation does not preclude use of any resulting statement in a subsequent U.S. criminal trial, unless interrogation was a joint venture of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Mayfield, No
    NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of the court. The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there. For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. /FnTEv ^ IN CLimCt OFFICE X This opinion was filed for record •UPMBC COURT,81ME OF WMKMOtON ri47E FEB 0 7 20191 at a.tM on GMIEFJUSTKE SUSAN L.
    [Show full text]
  • Duke Law School
    Neil S. Siegel David W. Ichel Professor of Law Professor of Political Science Director, DC Summer Institute on Law & Policy Duke University School of Law 210 Science Drive Durham, NC 27708 [email protected] (919) 613-7157 EDUCATION Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley: J.D., 2001 Graduated 1st in class; Boalt Hall Fellowship (full tuition, fees); Senior Articles Editor, California Law Review; Jurisprudence Awards in Federal Courts, U.S. Supreme Court Seminar, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law & Public Choice Theory, Law & Economics, and 18th Century Constitutional Design University of California, Berkeley: Ph.D. (Jurisprudence & Social Policy), 2001 Dissertation: Intransitivities Protect Minorities: Interpreting Madison’s Theory of the Extended Republic; Field Examinations in U.S. Constitutional Theory and Law & Economics; Berkeley Graduate Fellowship (full tuition, fees, stipend); Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs Fellow; John M. Olin Law & Economics Fellowship Duke University: M.A. (Economics), 1995 Full-tuition scholarship; Spengler Fellow Duke University: B.A., summa cum laude (Economics, Political Science), 1994 Angier B. Duke Memorial Scholarship (full tuition); Phi Beta Kappa; Graduation with Distinction in Economics, Political Science; Prize for Best Senior Thesis in Economics EXPERIENCE Duke University School of Law Durham, N.C. David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science July 2013 – present Director, DC Summer Institute on Law and Policy July 2013 – present Co-Director, Program in Public Law July 2008 – June 2018 Professor of Law and Political Science July 2009 – June 2013 Associate Professor of Law and Political Science July 2007 – June 2009 Assistant Professor of Law and Political Science July 2004 – June 2007 American Constitution Society Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 67 Issue 1 Article 12 2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test Seth Osnowitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Seth Osnowitz, Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test, 67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 273 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol67/iss1/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 67·Issue 1·2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Barker v. Wingo Test Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 273 I. Background and Policy of Sixth Amendment Right to Speedy Trial .......................................................................... 275 A. History of Speedy Trial Jurisprudence ............................................ 276 B. Policy Considerations and the “Demand-Waiver Rule”..................... 279 II. The Barker Test and Defendants’ Assertion of the Right to a Speedy Trial .................................................................. 282 A. Rejection of the
    [Show full text]