Talk:Schmerber v. California

Article Overhaul

Hi everyone! I am in the process of overhauling and expanding this article. I plan to return in the next few days to add new sections, including a discussion of the history of the exclusionary rule and a section about subsequent developments. Notecardforfree (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding mind reading: Is it non-intrusive? If so, how do you distinguish it from making an infra-red scan of an apartment to see if heat lamps are in use inside for growing marijuana? Would you make an expectation of privacy argument? Not my field...Just wondering PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

PraeceptorIP, to answer your first question, I think it depends what you mean by "intrusive." I'm not an expert in this area of science, but my understanding is that most brain scanners (e.g, an MRI) do not enter or penetrate the human body. However, a brain scan may be "intrusive" in the sense that it could reveal thoughts or other medical information that would not have been discovered were it not for the technology. In that sense, an MRI may be just as "intrusive" as a machine that can look through the walls of a home. As for your second question, I've never really considered the intersection between Schmerber's protections against warrantless intrusions into the body and Kyllo's protections against thermal scans of the home. I think there is definitely an interesting overlap between the cases. Just as the home has been recognized as an area of "special significance" in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, I think the human body is another place worthy of special protection. One of the concerns in Kyllo was that the thermal scanners could potentially reveal "intimate details" about activity in the home, and I think the same concerns are present for brain scans as well, which may inadvertently reveal deep, dark secrets or other intimate details. In the context of the Fifth Amendment, I don't think there have been any cases that have held that information from brain scans is "testimonial," but I don't think it is entirely outside the realm of possibility that we will one day have machines that can reveal thoughts. I'll have to think more about Kyllo's intersection with Schmerber ... this may be a good subject for a law review article sometime in the future. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schmerber v. California/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 06:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I will be starting this review. GregJackP Boomer! 06:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows WP:SCOTUS/SG, MOS:LAW
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See comments.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very well written, covers the case very well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Ditto
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

• Not a GA requirement, but you need to be consistent on your refs, either end all with no period or end all with a period. See n.19 (Wolf).

• Done. I removed the period from n.19, though after looking at other SCOTUS GAs and FAs, it looks like most use periods at the end of citations, so I will likely go back at some point in the future and put periods at the end of all the references. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's better to use a period because sometimes you have multiple sentences in a long note. It would look strange if earlier sentences end with a period but the last one does not. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• PraeceptorIP, that's an excellent point, and I have already gone through the article to put periods at the end of every footnote. Also, thanks for adding the Bluebook template to the references section. Hopefully that will stop people from disrupting the citations! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Notecardforfree, unfortunately it won't stop bots. There is a bot that goes around sniffing articles for ANY non-Bluebook citation, such as one dropped in by an itinerant junk donor who happened to pass by and decided to insert something that popped into his mind, and the bot upon finding one tries to change every BB cite to the other format (which doesn't allow pinpoint cites). GregJackP and I tried to talk the bot owner into inserting some code in his bot that would tell it to let alone articles with a BB template (in the manner of robot.txt). But he wouldn't do it. (Sigh) PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not a GA requirement, you do not have to use a long cite for the first cite of a dissent, you can short cite it with a parenthetical.

• Done. All subsequent citations to a case are now short citations. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not a GA requirement, when using {{main}}, you need to summarize the article you are linking to in the template. Sometimes it is better to use {{See also}}, which does not need a summarized paragraph in the current article.

• Done. I changed all three {{main}} tags to {{See also}}. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Might I recommend that you request a GOCE review, a peer review, and that you take it to FA? Outstanding article that I'm pleased to pass. GregJackP Boomer! 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your kind words -- Hopefully I will be able to take this to FA status one day! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)