Dr. Chris Totten and Recent MSCJ Grad. James Purdon publish Article in UC Press' New Criminal Law Review
KENNESAW, Ga. (Apr 17, 2017) — Dr. Christopher Totten and recent MCSJ graduate James ("Alex") Purdon had an article published in the New Criminal Law Review (NCLR), a University of California (UC) Press journal. NCLR is "[f]ocused on examinations of crime and punishment in domestic, transnational, and international contexts...." This refereed journal has recently ranked as high as fifth in the U.S. (sixth worldwide) in the field of criminal law and procedure. The article is entitled "A Content Analysis of Post-Jones Federal Appellate Cases: Implications of Jones for Fourth Amendment Search Law." The citation is --- Totten, C.D. & Purdon, J. (2017). A content analysis of post-Jones federal appellate cases: Implications of Jones for Fourth Amendment search law. New Criminal Law Review, 20, 233-308. The article abstract is as follows ---
The United States Supreme Court in 2012 in United States v. Jones changed the legal test for what constitutes a police search under the Fourth Amendment. After Jones, a search occurs when: (1) an individual’s privacy rights are violated (“Katz” test); and/or (2) an individual’s property is trespassed upon (“Jones” test). From 1967 until Jones, only the Katz test was used. In light of this significant change, this study explores two questions using a content analysis approach: (1) the choice of legal test used by federal appellate courts to decide the “search” question (i.e., the Jones test, Katz test, or both tests), and (2) these courts’ holding regarding whether a “search” occurred. Most of these courts are relying upon Jones in some fashion; however, Jones has not prevented these courts from frequently applying Katz. Though reliance on Jones alone has led to uniform determinations by courts of a “search” and hence enhanced Fourth Amendment protections, overall post-Jones there are nearly an equal number of courts finding a “search” and “no search.” When courts apply Katz alone to evaluate a search, they have held no search occurred. In sum, Jones’ impact on Fourth Amendment search law has been incremental and gradual.