Passenger Standing to Challenge Searches and Seizures: A Distinction Without a Constitutional Difference
Dante P. Trevisani                   [PDF]

The U.S. Supreme Court has adhered to the view, announced in Rakas v. Illinois, that automobile passengers do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a search of the car.  That is, if the police search a car in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence will inadmissible against the driver of the car, but admissible against the passenger. However, the Court has also held, confirmed recently in Brendlin v. California, that passengers do have standing to challenge the constitutionality of seizures of the passenger during traffic stops.  
        Trevisani's Note argues that this distinction is unjustified and has no basis in the policy and purpose behind the Fourth Amendment.  It creates an illogical distinction between the consequences of illegal searches and seizures, and does not reflect a proper Fourth Amendment analysis.  This Note then explores the Court's general inability to perceive the public's "reasonable" expectations in the search and seizure context.  Finally, this Note argues that a proper resolution would be to properly apply the passenger standing doctrine and declare that passengers do have standing to challenge illegal searches of automobiles, because passengers have reasonable expectations of privacy in the cars in which they ride.  
 

Teachers as Sexual Harassment Victims: The Inequitable Protections of Title VII in Public Schools
Richard D. Shane                         [PDF]

Sexual harassment in public schools has been heavily scrutinized by the media in recent years.  In educational environments where students should feel safe and secure, they are often the victims of sexual harassment by both students and teachers.  Student victims of sexual harassment can recover monetary damages from their school districts under Title IX, which was enacted in 1972 to combat sex discrimination in educational institutions.  However, students are not always the victims. 

Richard Shane’s Note, “Teachers as Sexual Harassment Victims:  The Inequitable Protections of Title VII in Public Schools,” discusses how teachers who fall victim to sexual harassment at the hands of their students have no comparable recourse under Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, or Title IX.  The author argues that victimized teachers, like employees in other work settings, should be protected by Title VII and given an opportunity to recover monetary damages. 
 

GINA: A Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Solution in Search of a Problem
Patricia Alten                                [PDF]

Genetic discrimination is unfair to workers and their families. It is unjustified—among other reasons, because it involves little more than medical speculation. A genetic predisposition toward cancer or heart disease does not mean the condition will develop. To address the potential use of genetic information by employers to discriminate against employees, Congress enacted the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). This Note proposes the need for modifications to GINA before it is effective later in 2009. In its current state, the provisions relating to employers are overly broad and could catch many employers in unknowing violations. The author argues that although GINA prohibits employment discrimination, it does not cover all of America’s workers and may be inherently unfair when applied to those it does cover.