- Online Edition
- Print Edition
- Donahue Lecture Series
- Archived Mastheads
This Note will begin by examining the historical background of the constitutional standards for search and seizure analysis. Next, it will address the gradual erosion of the particularized-suspicion requirement, illustrating the modern trend of courts to allow categorical judgments to serve as the basis for suspicion, as well as the move away from strict standards towards general reasonableness inquiries. The Note will then focus on officer training and experience, first addressing the seemingly inconsistent use of an officer’s subjective experiences in what is supposed to be a purely objective analysis of the basis of suspicion, then discussing the differing treatments of officer training and experience, as well as the “expert” nature of officer testimony. Then it turns to the high-crime area factor, highlighting the social, racial, and practical concerns implicated by the high-crime designation. This portion of the Note concludes by providing an example of one court’s framework for determining whether a neighborhood merits the high-crime designation, requiring objective, quantifiable support. . .
To properly exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum, such that it would be fair to hale him into court there to defend against a claim related to those contacts. The First Circuit has refined its minimum contacts analysis by requiring that a plaintiff’s claim relate to or arise out of the defendant’s contacts, that the defendant have purposely availed himself of the forum, and that the exercise of jurisdiction be reasonable. When a defendant, although not physically present in the relevant forum, intentionally engages in tortious conduct that injures a plaintiff located there, courts will evaluate the injuries or “effects” when analyzing whether a sufficient connection exists between the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s contacts. Traditionally, courts only considered in-forum effects under the purposeful availment prong of minimum contacts analysis, but in Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden America, Inc., the First Circuit strayed from its precedent by considering such effects under the relatedness prong and holding that specific jurisdiction over the defendant was proper. . .