Seizure and Search — (And I think this includes computers that are password protected.)
Jones on Closed Containers and Apparent-Authority Consent
Brian Jones has posted Keep Closed Containers Closed: Resolving the Circuit Split in Favor of Individual Privacy (Iowa Law Review, Vol. 97, November 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The circuits are currently split on the issue of the scope of apparent-authority consent regarding the searches of closed containers. Specifically, the circuits disagree about what measures law-enforcement officers should be required to take to determine ownership of a closed container when, while conducting a search pursuant to consent, the circumstances are ambiguous as to whether the consenter actually owns the closed container. Because the Sixth Circuit’s approach provides the most Fourth Amendment protection and is most faithful to Supreme Court precedent, the Court should resolve the current split by adopting the Sixth Circuit’s approach.
Collateral effects – immigration.
Castillo on Immigration Consequences of Pleas
Mario K. Castillo has posted Immigration Consequences: A Primer for Texas Criminal Defense Attorneys in Light of Padilla v. Kentucky (Baylor Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: A non-citizen convicted of violating a Texas state criminal statute is subject to a variety of harsh immigration penalties including deportation from the United States. Multiple variables determine whether a state criminal offense will trigger immigration deportation proceedings. A parallel concern is the impact that a state criminal offense may have on one of the routine offenses prosecuted in federal courts: illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. s. 1326. The Supreme Court has made it constitutionally impermissible for a criminal defense attorney to recommend the entry of a guilty plea in the absence of a basic, working knowledge of how that guilty plea will affect the non-citizen’s immigration status.
This Article begins by introducing the reader to a survey of typical deportation proceeding invoking offenses (“DPIOs”) established by federal law. Part II illustrates, via examples, how immigration law’s adoption of well-known criminal law terms does not necessarily require analogous definitions across both contexts. Part III then provides a brief overview of federal criminal sentencing enhancement law, on which much of immigration law relies, and closes by providing the distinct character that immigration proceedings have from their antecedents in federal criminal sentencing. Part IV apprises the reader of select federal sentencing enhancements especially germane to non-citizens that unlawfully reenter the Nation after having been deported. Finally, an attached appendix charts in detail, offense by offense, the immigration and federal sentencing consequences for select Texas criminal statutes.