Uncategorized | University of Richmond Law Review

Coordinated Action on School and Housing Integration: The Role of State Government

Megan Haberle* & Philip Tegeler**

In this essay, we assess the prospects for more coordinated government efforts to address housing and school segregation at the federal, state and local level. We conclude that multiple barriers to concerted action at the federal and local level, particularly to addressing racial and economic segregation across local boundaries, suggest a more central role for state governments than has previously been the case. State-level laws and programs can succeed as drivers of integration in a way that is distinct from either federal or local interventions, because of the state’s direct control over the key policies that drive modern school and housing segregation.

* Deputy Director of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council (“PRRAC”), a civil rights policy organization based in the District of Columbia. J.D. 2008, Columbia Law School.
** Executive Director of PRRAC. J.D., 1982, Columbia Law School.
The authors are grateful for the helpful input they received from Nestor Davidson, Olatunde Johnson, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, and Elizabeth DeBray, and the support of the Ford Foundation, the Intercultural Development Research Association, and the National Education Association for PRRAC’s recent work connecting housing and school integration policy.

Foreword: The People’s Lawyer: The Role of Attorney General in the Twenty-First Century

The Honorable Mark R. Herring*

* Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. J.D., 1990, University of Richmond School of Law; M.A., 1986, University of Virginia; B.A., 1983, University of Vir- ginia.

Katz v. United States: Back To The Future?

Michael Vitiello *

Fifty years ago, in Katz v. United States, the United States Supreme Court developed a flexible approach to assessing when the police’s use of modern technology became a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Katz abandoned the importance of trespass law and reframed the debate in terms of expectations of privacy.

Decided towards the end of the Warren Court era, Katz, like other progressive Warren Court decisions, has undergone a retrenchment over most of the past fifty years. In a series of post-Warren Court cases, the Court routinely found that when a suspect exposed information to third parties, society did not recognize the suspect’s expectation of privacy as reasonable. Thus, when the police sought similar access, the police conduct did not amount to a search. The post-Warren Court did not focus on how much privacy is essential to a free society. The post-Warren Court cases had the effect of allowing technological innovation to determine how much privacy the Fourth Amendment protects. Framed differently, when companies developed technology that required us to expose information to third parties—for example, when we use cell phones or global monitoring technology—the act of sharing information with the technology company eroded Fourth Amendment protection.

* Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law; University of Pennsylvania. J.D., 1974; Swarthmore College, B.A., 1969. I want to extend my thanks to participants in the 2017 SEALS conference panel on Criminal Justice and Technology, organized by Catherine Hancock and Cynthia Alkon, for their helpful comments. Particularly detailed and helpful were Scott Sundby’s comments. In addition, I offer special thanks to my research assistant Kendall Fisher for all of her help.

Criminal Law And Procedure

Aaron J. Campbell *

This article aims to give a succinct review of notable criminal law and procedure cases decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia during the past year. Instead of covering every ruling or rationale in these cases, the article focuses on the “take-away” of the holdings with the most precedential value. The article also summarizes noteworthy changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2017 Virginia General Assembly.

* Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Section, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia. J.D., 2009, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 2002, Concord University.

Next Entries »