|
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
LAW JOURNAL
Volume 30
Winter 2006
ARTICLES
Can Broadcast Indecency
Regulations Be Extended to Cable
Television and Satellite Radio?
Robert Corn-Revere
.....................................................................................................................................................243
With Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction and Howard Stern’s move to
satellite radio, there is an increasing tendency to extend indecency
regulation to media beyond over-the-air broadcasting. Proponents of
increased regulation have encouraged the passage of stricter laws, the use
of lockboxes and v-chips, and creation of la carte programming packages.
This Comment evaluates these proposed methods by examining the First
Amendment, past court decisions, and legislation. Articles Editor:, Chad
Kruse
OSHA
and Federalism in Times of Crisis: Issues in Federal and
State Relations
Joseph F. St. Cyr
..........................................................................................................................................................273
Disaster management at the federal level is shared by various governmental
agencies with diverse responsibilities. Since the tragedy of 9/11, the Bush
Administration has reshaped America’s national response levels and has also
coordinated various federal public safety agencies under the auspice of the
Department of Homeland Security. In 1991, extensive media attention was
focused on a major fire at a poultry plant in Hamlet, North Carolina. As a
result of this fire, twenty-five workers died. In 2001, terrorists struck
against various key targets within the United States, including New York’s
World Trade Center leading to thousands of deaths. Both tragic events
involved the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the areas of
initial response and investigation. These particular incidents are
reflective of the numerous dimensions involved in disaster management as
well as in intergovernmental relations. This Comment examines the
relationships between federal and state occupational safety programs when
handling work-related disasters. Articles Editor: Edward R. Albin
Open Records Adoption: Finding the Missing Piece
Rosemary Cabellero
....................................................................................................................................................291
The history of adoption in this country has focused mainly on the interests
of the biological parents and the adoptive parents with little or no concern
for the needs and interests of the persons who are adopted. Secrecy and
closure are two of the main interests of biological and adoptive parents.
However, these two interests directly interfere with the needs and interests
of the adoptees. Adoptees have voiced a range of interests, from meeting and
reuniting with biological parents to the more limited requests for
biological, medical, or genealogical information regarding their biological
family. This Comment argues that adoptees are entitled to information
regarding their birth because it is their history and their identity and
that supersedes the interests of biological or adoptive parents. Further,
this Comment argues that Illinois should follow the lead of other states,
such as Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Oregon and legislate to
provide adoptees access to their original birth certificates and more
openness in the adoption process. Articles Editor: Lizzie Schuerman
COMMENTS
The Inclusion of Settling Defendants
Under Section 2-1117:
The Right Move For The Illinois Courts
Edward Albin
...............................................................................................................................................................315
This Comment considers the allocation of fault among tortfesors in Illinois.
The article examines the ways in which fault is allocated when defendants
settle out of a case. The article argues that the fault of settling
defendants should be included when percentage fault is apportioned.
The Supreme Court Lets the Dogs Out: Reestablishing a
Reasonable Suspicion Standard for Drug Dogs in Illinois
Kyle Hutson
..................................................................................................................................................................335
The U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois v. Caballes determined that under the
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution no suspicion of drug activity was
necessary before police officers were allowed to use a drug-dog to circle a
vehicle which was lawfully pulled over. This decision overturned an Illinois
Supreme Court decision which had found that police officers were required to
meet at least a minimal standard of reasonable suspicion before using a
drug-dog. In other words, the Illinois Supreme Court found that at a minimum
the officers must be able to articulate some logical reason why a drug-dog
was used on a particular individual. However, the U.S. Supreme Court found,
under the Fourth Amendment, the officers did not have to find any type of
logical reason before conducting a drug-dog sniff, but rather could use
drug-dogs at random. This article examines whether Illinois should apply its
own standard for the use of drug-dogs, one that is based on its own state
constitution, or whether Illinois should merely adopt the standard expressed
by the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, this article traces the history of
both the Federal and Illinois Constitutions, the differing federal and state
interpretations of whether a dog-sniff constitutes a search, and analyzes
the pros and cons of the differing standards for the use of drug-dogs.
CASENOTES
A Difference of Opinion:
Reconciling the Court’s Decision in
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)
Mollie Nolan
...............................................................................................................................................................357
The Americans with Disabilities Act protects the rights of disabled
Americans by requiring both public and private entities to make specific
accommodations for those with disabilities as they engage in a broad variety
of activities. The Act also provides disabled persons with a number of
remedies for private enforcement of the Act’s requirements. This includes
granting disabled persons the right to sue States, thereby abrogating the
States’ Eleventh Amendment right immunity from suits by citizens. In
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld
Congress’ abrogation of States’ immunity rights with regard to Title II of
the ADA. This decision was somewhat surprising because the Court had ruled
just three years earlier in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama
v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), that Congress had not properly abrogated
the same State right with regard to Title I of the ADA. As a result of these
two seemingly irreconcilable decisions, individuals may sue States for ADA
Title II violations, but the same remedy is not available for State
violations of Title I. Nonetheless, Lane is reconcilable with Garrett when
one considers different rights at issue in each case. More significantly,
however, Lane has the potential to significantly broaden Congress’ ability
to abrogate States’ rights when enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment.
Curbing Police Misconduct Through
The Exclusionary Rule:
United States v. Johnson, 380 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2004)
Jim Webb
...................................................................................................................................................................395
In United States v. Johnson, the Seventh Circuit held the district court
wrongly applied the exclusionary rule when it refused to exclude
incriminating evidence seized from defendant Johnson’s car. Police searched
the defendant and his passengers without probable cause. While conceding the
police violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by searching him
without cause, the district court found that the illegal search of the
passengers would have eventually led to the evidence seized from the
defendant’s car. However, the defendant could not challenge the search of
his passengers because these searches did not violate his personal Fourth
Amendment rights. Judge Richard Posner, writing for the Seventh Circuit,
reversed. This Casenote analyzes whether Johnson possessed standing to
challenge the search of his car. Next, it discusses whether excluding the
evidence seized from Johnson’s car best serves the exclusionary rule’s
deterrent purpose. Finally, this Casenote focuses on a torts analogy Judge
Posner used to explain his reasoning.
|