The University of Memphis law review最新文献

{"title":"Warrantless GPS Surveillance: Search and Seizure - Using the Right to Exclude to Address the Constitutionality of GPS Tracking Systems Under the Fourth Amendment","authors":"Jace C. Gatewood","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1973627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1973627","url":null,"abstract":"GPS tracking systems are a rapidly growing technology that provide a wide range of benefits, including navigation, transportation, and public safety. Of the many potential uses of GPS technology, location tracking is perhaps one of the fastest-growing GPS applications today. Law enforcement agencies nationwide secretly use GPS tracking systems to conduct surveillance on suspected criminals in a variety of situations, which has led to countless arrests and convictions. The unfettered use of GPS tracking raises many unanswered questions about an individual’s right to privacy in an increasingly technological world. This Article explores traditional concepts of property rights; specifically, the right to exclude, that underlie fundamental notions of the right to privacy and the protection of property interests under the Fourth Amendment. This Article advocates that the right to exclude is so inextricably connected to the right to privacy and the protection of property interests that any invasion of the right to exclude, absent a warrant, consent or other exigent circumstances, (i) violates one’s reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, and (ii) represents a meaningful interference with property interests sufficient to constitute a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82130106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Blurred Boundaries of Social Networking in the Legal Field: Just 'Face' it","authors":"Kathleen Elliott Vinson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1666462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1666462","url":null,"abstract":"A lawyer gets a third party to \"friend\" an adverse witness; a judge \"friends\" defense counsel during a trial; a juror posts a poll on Facebook regarding the outcome of the case; a litigant boasts on Facebook about how much money he anticipates recovering from his lawsuit; a lawyer vents on Facebook about judges, clients, and opposing counsel; photos of a defendant on Facebook show him taking drugs and holding a weapon; and photos on Facebook show a lawyer partying during the week when he was granted a continuance due to an alleged death in his family. Indeed, Facebook can be a treasure trove of information, not only for those with whom users intend to share, but also to unintended audiences. This article explores how the pervasive use of Facebook plays a role in the legal field, puts a spin on old legal issues, and creates new ones. The article examines how the relationship between social networking and members of the legal community continues to evolve, and blur the boundaries between personal and professional worlds, creating legal and ethical minefields. The article provides guidance regarding how to navigate these minefields, beginning in law school and continuing throughout the legal profession.","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81308973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"'Reparations' as a Dirty Word: The Norm Against Slavery Reparations","authors":"Lee Harris","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.433020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.433020","url":null,"abstract":"Social norms have been used to explain a variety of legal subjects, from family law to tax law. I assert in this Article that a social norms construct may help us understand the current public debate (or lack thereof) over whether the United States should make reparations to African Americans. Specifically, I find that reparative ideas are incongruent with norms of socially acceptable behavior. My first task is to explain why there is a norm against public support for slavery reparations. I identify three sources of social norms'; norms derived from culture; norms instigated by individuals; and norms derived from the law; and explain how each source conflicts with reparative ideas and thus contributes to a norm against supporting reparations. Next, I discuss public debate over reparations in light of a norm against reparations. Specifically, I argue that an anti-reparation norm has stifled public discussion of reparations to African Americans. Predictably, it has become increasingly impossible for supporters of reparations to be open and honest. Finally, I take the liberty to look back on my argument at its weakest links.","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77000397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Religion and American Politics: Three Views of the Cathedral","authors":"P. Horwitz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1267445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1267445","url":null,"abstract":"The relationship between religion and politics in the American social and constitutional structure is a subject of endless contestation. Much of that discussion, taking place as it has in an academic environment, has had a decidedly abstract air. In this paper, I shift the focus from the abstract to the practical by looking at the central participants in the debate over religion and politics: the political candidates themselves. I offer a close reading of speeches by three of the most prominent political candidates to offer an examination of religion's role in politics: John F. Kennedy, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama. A close reading of these three speeches reveals much common ground, but also a good deal of change and, I argue, progress in the terms of debate, although that progress is incomplete.The overall movement in the speeches is from a strategy of avoidance, practiced most notably by John F. Kennedy, in which minority religious candidates are welcomed in the public square but religion is rendered a private matter for both candidates and voters alike, to one of engagement and inclusion, in which both religious candidates and religious arguments are increasingly accepted in the public square. Each of the modern candidates examined here achieves only a partial marriage of inclusion and engagement. Mitt Romney pursues a strategy of inclusion in which religious views are permitted in political debate, but seeks to foreclose any genuine engagement with religion. By contrast, Barack Obama offers a thoughtful engagement between religion and politics. But he prescribes a rule of dialogue in which religious individuals are required to speak in publicly accessible terms, thus precluding the total inclusion of religious individuals in the political process in their own voices. In contrast to all three, I argue here for a model of genuine inclusion and engagement, in which religion and openly religious arguments are welcome in the public square but also subject to critical inquiry and disagreement. The model of inclusion and engagement may be messy, but it is also the fairest and best approach to the relationship between religion and politics.","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90526972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Parenthood, genes, and gametes: the family law and trusts and estates perspectives.","authors":"Naomi R Cahn","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25896826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Essay--legal issues of stem cell transplantation and the family.","authors":"Timothy McIntire","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25896825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recent developments in Tennessee's doctrine of informed consent.","authors":"D S Porch","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25896827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}