TITLE

DUSENBERY v. UNITED STATES: certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

PUB. DATE
January 2009
SOURCE
Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present);2009, p1
SOURCE TYPE
Law
DOC. TYPE
Legal Material
ABSTRACT
This article presents information on the U.S. Supreme Court case Dusenbery v. U.S., case number 00-6567, argued on October 29, 2001 and decided on January 8, 2002. In vacating and remanding, the Sixth Circuit held that the motion of the petitioner for the return of all the property and funds seized in his criminal case should have been construed as a civil complaint which sought equitable relief for a due process challenge to the adequacy of the notice. On remand, the District Court presided over a telephone deposition of a federal correctional institution (FCI) officer who said that he signed the certified mail receipt for the notice of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to petitioner and testified about the guidelines of the FCI for accepting, logging and delivering certified mail addressed to inmates.
ACCESSION #
19078213

 

Related Articles

  • FOURTH AMENDMENT--A RENEWED PLEA FOR RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF TAINTED CONFESSIONS. Levinson, William D. // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Winter1982, Vol. 73 Issue 4, p1408 

    The article focuses on the five to four decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Taylor v. Alabama case, upholding the defendant's confession as the consequence of an illegal arrest. The Court broke the proper application of the rule set forth in Brown test after finding whether the police has...

  • SACRIFICING MASSIAH: CONFUSION OVER EXCLUSION AND EROSION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. Tomkovicz, James J. // Lewis & Clark Law Review;Spring2012, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p1 

    In this Article, Professor Tomkovicz examines the Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel-based "exclusionary rule" first announced in 1964, in Massiah v. United States. The impetus for this examination is the Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Kansas v. Ventris--more specifically, that decision's dubious...

  • FOURTH AMENDMENT--REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE. Romero, Elsie // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Winter1988, Vol. 78 Issue 4, p763 

    This article focuses on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Arizona versus Hicks which deals with requiring probable cause for searches and seizures under the plain view doctrine. The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals against arbitrary and...

  • High court expands police power to search. Richey, Warren // Christian Science Monitor;4/7/99, Vol. 91 Issue 91, p1 

    Focuses on cases being considered by the United States Supreme Court involving Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specific issues being examined, including the need for warrants to forfeit cars suspected for drug dealing; Comments of analysts and law...

  • Excluding the Exclusionary Rule: Extending the Rationale of Hudson v. Michigan to Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches. Gittins, Jeffry R. // Brigham Young University Law Review;2007, Vol. 2007 Issue 2, p451 

    The article argues that the rationale announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hudson versus Michigan case should be extended to unauthorized nighttime searches. In 1914, the Supreme Court first introduced exclusionary rule, which stated that evidence obtained pursuant to an unauthorized...

  • Laptop Searches and the Fourth Amendment. Hofmann, Marcia // National Security Law Report;Nov2008, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p10 

    The article focuses on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects people against unreasonable government searches and seizures. It says that while the Fourth Amendment applies at the nation's borders and requires that searches are reasonable there, the Supreme Court ruled that...

  • The "Special Needs" Exception to the Warrant Requirement. King, Martin J. // FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin;Jun2006, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p21 

    Examines the special needs exception as applied to situations in which law enforcement directly conducts searches and seizures without individualized suspicion for the purpose of minimizing a risk of harm. Critical factor in the validity of suspicionless searching; Reason the U.S. Supreme Court...

  • DAVIS v. UNITED STATES: GOOD FAITH, RETROACTIVITY, AND THE LOSS OF PRINCIPLE. McAloon, David // Maryland Law Review;2012, Vol. 71 Issue 4, p1258 

    The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Davis v. United States, which dealt with an individual's Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. Topics include good faith searches, the exclusionary rule, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Information is provided on...

  • THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, AND THE ROBERTS COURT: NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE OVER-DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS. Dripps, Donald // Chicago-Kent Law Review;2010, Vol. 85 Issue 1, p209 

    This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics