California Supreme Court upholds collection of DNA from suspected felons not yet convicted of a crimeSean Emery
The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that authorities are legally entitled to collect DNA from suspected felons when they are booked into local lockups, overturning a lower court ruling that questioned the constitutionality of the practice.
USA Today addresses the privacy concerns raised after Congress passed the CLOUD Act, a bill that would allow police in other countries to have access to emails and other electronic communications more easily from their own citizens as well as Americans.
In “Cross-Enforcement of the Fourth Amendment,” forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review, Orin S. Kerr of the Southern California Gould School of Law tackles the complexity of identifying who can enforce what law under the Fourth Amendment.
Professor Tracey Meares has sandwiched this trip to Chicago between two teaching days at the Yale Law School, timing it for when her kids are out of the house. On this cool Thursday morning in May 2017, she’s back in her favorite city, where she lived for almost 20 years. She’s come to Chicago State University to help train investigators for the city’s new Civilian Office of Police Accountability. At Yale, she teaches students in their 20s, in a wood-paneled room hung with portraits in oil, but here in this windowless, fluorescent-lit room, her students are three dozen former prosecutors, defense attorneys, and ex-cops. They will soon begin investigating complaints against Chicago’s often reviled police.
Police cannot put a GPS device onto a vehicle to track its movements without first getting a warrant, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Carpenter v. United States, where the question presented is whether the Fourth Amendment permits the warrantless seizure and search of a user’s cellphone location and movement information.
Several observers credit nearly 25 years of declining crime rates to the “New Policing” and its emphasis on advanced statistical metrics, new forms of organizational accountability, and aggressive tactical enforcement of minor crimes.
But there is no doubt we are on the precipice of a criminal justice data revolution, and it is a good time to take stock and to begin developing guidelines so that, as much as possible, criminal justice systems might reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of this newly data-centric world.
Part I examines changes associated with the Supreme Court’s requirement that juvenile courts provide delinquents some procedural safeguards. Part II examines the Get Tough Era and states’ emphases on youths’ adult-like culpability and adoption of punitive policies. Part III reviews the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence of youth, reaffirmation that children are different, and limits on harsh punishment for youths. It concludes with a reflection on the limits of juvenile justice reform to improve the life chances of young people.
Few controversies in policing are as fraught as the use of Terry stops—temporary detentions made by officers upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, often accompanied by protective pat-down searches known as “frisks.” Studies have shown that racial minorities are disproportionately targeted for Terry stops, raising concerns about profiling and discrimination. Yet many police agencies view Terry stops as a critical tool in their arsenal. A related concern is the use of traffic stops—even on probable cause—to conduct more intrusive searches.