Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Origins And Legacy Of The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Balancing Model, Kit Kinports
The Origins And Legacy Of The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Balancing Model, Kit Kinports
Journal Articles
The overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment cases over the past fifty years have been resolved using a warrant presumption model, which determines the constitutionality of a search or seizure by asking whether law enforcement officials had probable cause and a warrant, or some exception to those requirements. But three decisions, beginning in 2001, mysteriously deviated from that approach and applied a reasonableness balancing model, upholding the searches in those cases after considering the totality of the circumstances and weighing the competing government interests against the defendant’s privacy interests. This balancing approach has justifiably been criticized as amorphous, …
Veteran Police Officers And Three-Dollar Steaks: The Subjective/Objective Dimensions Of Probable Cause And Reasonable Suspicion, Kit Kinports
Journal Articles
This Article addresses two issues surrounding probable cause and reasonable suspicion that test the line between subjective and objective standards in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: the extent to which a particular police officer’s training and experience ought to be considered in measuring probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and the relevance of the officer’s subjective beliefs about the presence of a weapon in assessing the reasonable suspicion required to justify a frisk. Although both questions have split the lower courts and remain unresolved by the Supreme Court, the majority of courts treat them inconsistently, recognizing the importance of an officer’s training, experience, …
Diminishing Probable Cause And Minimalist Searches, Kit Kinports
Diminishing Probable Cause And Minimalist Searches, Kit Kinports
Journal Articles
This paper comments on recent Supreme Court opinions that have used phrases such as "reasonable belief" and "reason to believe" when analyzing intrusions that generally require proof of probable cause. Historically, the Court used these terms as shorthand references for both probable cause and reasonable suspicion. While this lack of precision was unobjectionable when the concepts were interchangeable, that has not been true since Terry v. Ohio created a distinction between the two standards. When the Justices then resurrect these terms without situating them in the dichotomy between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, it is not clear whether they are …