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.
Legal experts say Congress and the states need to step in to protect Americans’ privacy rights from the proliferation of voice-activated personal assistant devices such as Amazon’s Echo and Google’s Home, after a murder case in Arkansas raised questions about how much the devices are hearing — and whether the government can demand access to its recordings.
The Policing project is on ALI’s Annual Meeting agenda this year for the first time, specifically, Use of Force. These principles were prioritized because there is an immediate need for guidance on this issue, and many states and police departments are considering reform to their current use of force policies.
Should video from LAPD body cameras be released after a police shooting? If so, when? Police Commission wants to knowKate Mather
The Los Angeles Police Commission on Thursday launched its latest effort to answer one of the biggest questions facing law enforcement today, one that has increasingly tested the LAPD and other agencies as video consistently inspires fresh scrutiny of policing: When should footage from police body cameras be released?
The Policing project is on ALI’s Annual Meeting agenda this year for the first time, specifically, Use of Force. As the project progresses, The ALI Adviser will share several sections of the project, including Black Letter and Comments. The first in this series is Section 5.04 – Proportional Use of Force.
Watching the debate in this country over public safety, you’d think some people wish to live securely, while others welcome Armageddon. Conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly recently went after “liberal politicians” in Chicago and San Francisco, noting crime in those cities and saying, “The situation is out of control and a disgrace, and that’s what happens when incompetent politicians demand the police stop enforcing laws.”