Document Type


Publication Date



Yale Kamisar has been my friend and colleague for almost forty years now, and my first inclination was to write about those relationships, which have meant so much to me. But I know that other friends and colleagues participating in this tribute issue can bring to the description of those relationships far greater skill and far greater eloquence. I have been Yale's coauthor for roughly thirty-five years on his professional "pride and joy" - Modern Criminal Procedure' - and that is another relationship that I could describe with warmth and affection. But Wayne LaFave, who has shared this same role, is also contributing to this issue,' and I know better than to compete with his wit, wisdom, and lexical expertise.' There is, however, one relationship I have shared with Yale that is unique to the two of us. For most of Yale's time on the Michigan faculty, I have been his primary "sounding board" on matters of criminal procedure (as he has been mine).4 I was his coauthor-in-resident, the primary person with whom he divided Michigan's criminal procedure curriculum,' and perhaps most importantly, the one person certain to challenge his views (whether or not I actually disagreed with him).6 Since both of us learn best from an oral exchange of viewpoints, these circumstances led to endless discussions/debates in a variety of different places within the confines of the Cook Law Quadrangle.' Very often, these discussions focused on something Yale was writing or had written.' Prior to my taking on the responsibilities of treatise-writing, our discussions centered most often on substantive matters, as I was able to keep up, in a general fashion, with major developments in the law regulating police practices, although my research and writing dealt largely with other aspects of the criminal justice process. Keeping a treatise current, however, made that more and more difficult, and our discussions often turned to another very interesting (and often potentially contentious) topic - why Yale was writing about a particular topic and how his viewpoint would be presented. This was a natural offspring of our discussions over the years of the role and character of law review articles (particularly in connection with the question of which articles should be noted in Modern).