CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - FOURTH AMENDMENT - SIXTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT APARTMENT HALLWAY WALL IS NOT CURTILAGE. - United States v. Trice, 966 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2020)

被引：0

|

作者：

不详

机构：

来源：

HARVARD LAW REVIEW | 2020年 / 134卷 / 08期

关键词：

D O I：

暂无

中图分类号：

D9 [法律]; DF [法律];

学科分类号：

0301 ;

摘要：

引用

收藏

页码：2879 / 2886

页数：8

相关论文

共 18 条

[1] CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - FOURTH AMENDMENT - SIXTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT APARTMENT HALLWAY WALL IS NOT CURTILAGE.
不详
HARVARD LAW REVIEW, 2021, 134 (08) : 2879 - 2886
[2] CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE JURY INSTRUCTIONS: UNITED STATES V. LAPOINTE, 690 F.3D 434 (6TH CIR. 2012)
Caprino, Nicholas F.
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2014, 82 (01) : 257 - 281
[3] The admissibility determination of expert testimony on eyewitness identification:: United States v. Smithers, 212 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2000)
Barnett, MR
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2002, 70 (02) : 751 - 788
[4] The federal carjacking statute under commercial clause scrutiny after Lopez: United States v. McHenry, 97 F.3d 125 (6th Cir. 1996).
Blatt, D
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 1998, 66 (02) : 747 - 774
[5] Pretextual arrests: The Ninth Circuit invades the home in United States v. Hudson, 100 F.3d 1409 (9th Cir. 1996)
Schaen, RJ
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 1998, 66 (03) : 1045 - 1070
[6] Federal protection from bullies:: Williams v. General Motors Corp., 187 f.3d 553 (6th cir. 1999)
Wilcoxon, KD
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2000, 68 (04) : 1399 - 1426
[7] Counsel as tax preparer, an unprivileged position:: United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3D 496 (7th cir. 1999)
Mason, AI
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2000, 69 (01) : 411 - 433
[8] CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - CONFRONTATION CLAUSE - FOURTH CIRCUIT FINDS NO RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION DURING SENTENCE SELECTION PHASE OF CAPITAL TRIAL. - United States v. Umana, 750 E3d 320 (4th Cir.), reh'g en banc denied, 76.2 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2014).
不详
HARVARD LAW REVIEW, 2015, 128 (03) : 1027 - 1034
[9] Tapping into family affairs:: Examining the Federal Wiretapping Statute as it applies to the home, Pollock v. Pollock 154 F.3D 601 (6th CIR. 1998)
Karkosak, J
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2000, 68 (03) : 995 - 1022
[10] Unfairly applying the fair use doctrine: Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996).
Frey, MG
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 1998, 66 (03) : 959 - 1018