TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE: WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The article discusses the distinction between dependent and independent intervening causes, and its use by the courts in the U.S. It examines temporal concurrence of the wrongdoer's conduct; and U.S. Supreme Court case Utah v. Strieff in which the court declined to suppress evidence that the police had obtained as the result of an unlawful investigatory stop.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)77-101
Number of pages25
JournalGeorge Mason Law Review
Volume25
Issue number1
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Keywords

  • UNITED States. Supreme Court
  • INTERVENING cause (Law)
  • COURTS -- United States
  • EVIDENCE (Law)
  • CRIMINAL investigation

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE: WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this