Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Textual (In)Difference In State Search-And-Seizure Provisions, Quinn Yeargain

Northwestern University Law Review

Over the past 250 years, state constitutional drafters have refined the scope of rights and liberties protected by their constitutions’ texts. Today, all state constitutions include a search-and-seizure provision—and though only a minority follow the layout, text, and context of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most of them bear a striking resemblance to it. However, textual variations abound. Some of them may seem minor, like using the word “possessions” instead of “effects,” or mandating that warrants describe their intended targets “as nearly as may be” instead of requiring that they “particularly describ[e]” them. But others, like the addition …

Washington Search And Seizure Law: 2026 Update, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Debra L. Stephens, Justice Steven González

Seattle University Law Review

This Survey is intended to serve as a resource which Washington lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, and others can turn to as an authoritative starting point for researching Washington search and seizure law. In order to be useful as a research tool, this Survey requires periodic updates to address new cases interpreting the Washington constitution and the U.S. Constitution and to reflect the current state of the law. As the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to examine Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence, its decisions and reflections on Washington law are discussed.

Most of the Survey cases involve the Washington …

Reasonable, Legal, Voluntary? Grants Pass Decision Sparks Need For A Revised Fourth Amendment Search Analysis In The Context Of Homelessness, Hali R. Woods

Catholic University Law Review

On June 28, 2024 the Supreme Court decided City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson.  The case addressed whether the enforcement of city ordinances regulating camping on public property against individuals including respondents, unhoused individuals residing in the city of Grants Pass, constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.  The Court upheld enforcement of the ordinances and since then approximately 150 cities across the United States have passed similar ordinances or strengthened existing similar laws.  This comment evaluates how Grants Pass is an Eighth Amendment case with Fourth Amendment consequences which sparks a need for a revised …

Rethinking Objectivity: The Problem Of Pretext In The Fourth Amendment, Monu S. Bedi

Indiana Law Journal

Pretextual encounters continue to erode the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Simply put, a police officer can act on personal bias or animus as long as the search or seizure is deemed “objectively reasonable.” Numerous scholars (e.g., Bennett Capers, Gabriel Chin, and David Harris) have critiqued this objective standard, contending it perpetuates discriminatory practices, particularly against communities of color. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself suggested that the Court might need to reconsider the legal precedent she helped establish. More recently, Orin Kerr has also argued that the Court’s reliance on objective determinations is inconsistent with …

Police Use Of Force: Barnes V. Felix And Moving Beyond The Moment Of Threat, Rebecca Aitchison

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justifying The Fourth Amendment, Daniel Epps

Scholarship@WashULaw

Why does the Fourth Amendment belong in the Constitution? This question is not whether society should impose some legal restraints on government searches and seizures. Rather, why should such protections reside in our national charter, superior to other forms of law and insulated from change via ordinary majoritarian political processes? Despite major disputes about the Fourth Amendment’s content, Fourth Amendment theorists rarely ask this question. Almost all agree that the Fourth Amendment’s constitutional protections are critically important—even if no one can agree exactly what those protections are.

This Article seeks a justification for the Fourth Amendment—the reason why search-and-seizure protections …

"Intolerable" Inquiries, Zachary R. Cormier

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

A growing majority of courts have broadly accepted travel-plan questions (and their follow-up questions) as a qualifying category of traffic-mission inquiries under Rodriguez, leaving officers with a clear pathway from pretextual traffic stop—to extended discussion about vehicle occupant activities outside the traffic violation—to drug dog sniff—to vehicle search. A closer analysis of Rodriguez, however, precludes such passage through the heart of its traffic-mission rule. This Article will demonstrate that travel-plan questioning cannot qualify alongside the roadway safety checks identified by Rodriguez in its traffic-mission inquiry list because such checks provide direct information about another safety-related traffic violation …

Data-Driven Police Profiling, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Police departments increasingly rely on algorithms and other data- driven methods of identifying high-crime areas andpeople who are at high risk for involvement in crime. This Article examines several constitutional obstacles to this type ofpolicing. First, to the extent that these algorithms rely on data entitled to privacy protection, they may violate the Fourth Amendment. Second, the steps police take in response to a "hot" place or person designation must also be subject to constitutional regulation. Further, the principle of legality should prohibit the police from acting on any risk designation, even one that is very likely accurate, in the …

What’S In A Name? How The Eleventh Circuit Ignored The Fourth Amendment To Hold That A Warrant For One Person Authorizes The Detention Of Others, Jared Mcclain, Dylan Moore

University of Miami Law Review

Odds are, your name isn’t all that unique. Most people share the same first and last name with hundreds, if not thousands, of other Americans. The frequency with which people share a name raises an important question of civil rights: What happens when officers arrest and detain an innocent person based on an arrest warrant that was issued for someone else with the same name?

In the Eleventh Circuit, the answer is almost always “nothing.” So long as a mistaken detention lasts three days or fewer, officers are free from accountability for apprehending the innocent—even if those officers have good …

Caution: Potholes In E-Scooter Data Collection, Dakota Rakestraw

Seattle University Law Review

Lime scooters keep ending up in major waterways in Washington state metro areas, a testament to the ubiquity of e-scooters in the metropolitan landscape. How they get there is unclear. Why they get there is even murkier. Perhaps the answer lies in the implications of modern geolocation data collection through e-scooters and gaps in current data collection regulation curbing individual liberties.

Since September 2020, electric scooters have run Seattle’s streets and have dramatically overtaken ridesharing bike trips. For example, from September 2020 to September 2021, there were about 1.4 million scooter and bike trips with September 2021 seeing 300,000 scooter …

Office Intent And Excessive Force, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the mayhem that often accompanies a police officer’s use of force, all manner of mistakes and miscalculations can occur. Suspects are accidentally shot, innocent bystanders are bitten by police dogs, and hostages are killed instead of their kidnappers. To what degree may persons harmed by police mistakes obtain relief through excessive force claims?

At present, the answer to this question is surprisingly uncertain. It is clear that an excessive force claim requires that an officer intend to seize the suspect, but it is far less clear whether the officer must also intend the nature and extent of force used …

The Fourth Amendment's Hidden Intrusion Doctrine, Laura Ginsberg Abelson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Fourth Amendment’s concept of probable cause is the linchpin of legal standards governing law enforcement actions such as arrests, searches, and seizures. This article challenges the assumption that the same quantum of evidence can meet the probable cause standard regardless of whether law enforcement seek to conduct a search, to seize evidence, or to make an arrest, and regardless of the intrusiveness of such search or seizure. This paper demonstrates that the Supreme Court implicitly considers the degree of intrusion into privacy or liberty, not just the quantum or quality of evidence, when determining whether probable cause exists. In …

Video Analytics And Fourth Amendment Vision, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

What does the Fourth Amendment have to say about video analytics running on citywide camera systems? Video analytics (also known as computer vision) involves hardware and software in cameras that turns video surveillance streams into useful data, identifying, categorizing, matching, and alerting police about objects, people, and incidents. Video analytics can identify objects (e.g., hat, backpack, person, car) and track that person or thing back in time and through the streets using video surveillance footage. For police officers conducting virtual patrols or retrospective investigations, video analytics lets police scan thousands of linked cameras for suspicious behavior or a particular suspect, …

The Reality Of The Good Faith Exception, Matthew Tokson, Michael Gentithes

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment’s primary remedy is the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence at trial. But not every defendant whose rights are violated gets a remedy. The most substantial obstacle for defendants is the good faith exception, which directs courts to admit unlawfully collected evidence if the police can show they relied in good faith on existing authority. If the police rely on a statute that turns out to be unconstitutional, or a warrant or precedent that turns out to be invalid, the evidence they obtain will nonetheless be admitted under the good faith exception. The Supreme Court has justified this …

Back To The Future: Revisiting State Constitutions To Protect Against New Technological Intrusions, Matthew Radford

Washington and Lee Law Review

The Fourth Amendment is crucial for protecting Americans from government intrusion. However, new technologies such as pole cameras, reverse keyword searches, and geofence searches provide new ways for governments to gather information about individuals. As these new technologies develop, the Fourth Amendment has struggled to advance alongside this new technology.

Thankfully, the Fourth Amendment is not the only protection Americans have from government intrusion. Every single state has its own state constitution and analog to the Federal Fourth Amendment. In fact, some states had their own analog amendments even before the adoption of the Federal Fourth Amendment. While oftentimes the …

Police Shootings After Torres V. Madrid: Suspects Eluding Capture Are Seized Under Fourth Amendment, Travis R. Thickstun

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In Torres v. Madrid, the Supreme Court held that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. Because this new rule brings even the slightest touches within the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, it allows more claims against police officers for violations of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Until the Torres decision though, only when someone shot by police was actually taken into custody could that person sue the police officers …

Computationally Assessing Suspicion, Wesley M. Oliver, Morgan A. Gray, Jaromir Savelka, Kevin D. Ashley

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Law enforcement officers performing drug interdiction on interstate highways have to decide nearly every day whether there is reasonable suspicion to detain motorists until a trained dog can sniff for the presence of drugs. The officers’ assessments are often wrong, however, and lead to unnecessary detentions of innocent persons and the suppression of drugs found on guilty ones. We propose a computational method of evaluating suspicion in these encounters and offer experimental results from early efforts demonstrating its feasibility. With the assistance of large language and predictive machine learning models, it appears that judges, advocates, and even police officers could …

Computationally Assessing Suspicion, Wesley M. Oliver

Law Faculty Publications

Law enforcement officers performing drug interdiction on interstate highways have to decide nearly every day whether there is reasonable suspicion to detain motorists until a trained dog can sniff for the presence of drugs. The officers’ assessments are often wrong, however, and lead to unnecessary detentions of innocent persons and the suppression of drugs found on guilty ones. We propose a computational method of evaluating suspicion in these encounters and offer experimental results from early efforts demonstrating its feasibility. With the assistance of large language and predictive machine learning models, it appears that judges, advocates, and even police officers could …

The Mosaic Theory In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: The Last Bastion Of Privacy In A Camera-Surveilled World, Auggie Alvarado

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Filtered Dragnets And The Anti-Authoritarian Fourth Amendment, Jane R. Bambauer

UF Law Faculty Publications

Filtered dragnets are digital searches that identify a suspect based on the details of a crime. They can be designed to withhold information from law enforcement unless and until there is a very high probability that the individual has committed the offense. Examples today include DNA matching, facial recognition from photographs or video of a crime, automated child sexual abuse material detection, and reverse geolocation (geofence) searches. More are sure to come, and their wide-scale use will be irresistible to improve the low rates of criminal detection that currently afflict many communities.

However, filtered dragnets imperil society precisely because they …

Arrests: Legal And Illegal, Daniel Yeager

Georgia State University Law Review

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. An arrest—manifesting a police intention to transport a suspect to the stationhouse for booking, fingerprinting, and photographing—is a mode of seizure. Because arrests are so intrusive, they require roughly a fifty percent chance that an arrestable offense has occurred. Because nonarrest seizures (aka Terry stops), though no “petty indignity,” are less intrusive than arrests, they require roughly just a twenty-five percent chance that crime is afoot.

Any arrest not supported by probable cause is illegal. It would therefore seem to follow that any arrest supported by probable cause is legal. But it …

The Automated Fourth Amendment, Maneka Sinha

Emory Law Journal

Courts routinely defer to police officer judgments in reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. Increasingly, though, police officers outsource these threshold judgments to new forms of technology that purport to predict and detect crime and identify those responsible. These policing technologies automate core police determinations about whether crime is occurring and who is responsible.

Criminal procedure doctrine has failed to insist on some level of scrutiny of—or skepticism about—the reliability of this technology. Through an original study analyzing numerous state and federal court opinions, this Article exposes the implications of law enforcement’s reliance on these practices given the weighty interests …

The Unconstitutional Conditions Vacuum In Criminal Procedure, Kay L. Levine, Jonathan R. Nash, Robert A. Schapiro

Faculty Articles

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in many contexts, scrutinizing government efforts to condition the tradeoff of rights for benefits with regard to speech, funding, and takings, among others. The Court has declined, however, to invoke the doctrine in the area of criminal procedure, where people accused of crime are often asked to—and often do—surrender their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in return for some benefit. Despite its insistence that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies broadly across the Bill of Rights, the Court’s jurisprudence demonstrates that the doctrine …

Digital Rummaging, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The digital world encodes our lives with incriminating clues. How you travel, live, love, and shop are tracked through growing surveillance technologies. Police have recognized this reality and are actively exploiting new surveillance tools for investigative purposes.

The Fourth Amendment—the constitutional protection meant to limit police search powers—has not kept up with the privacy and security threats of these new digital technologies. Current doctrine has remained stymied by legal tests asking all the wrong questions about “reasonable expectations of privacy” and “trespass” searches. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged that “digital is different,” it has not yet provided a coherent …

Consent Searches As Police Violence, David B. Owens

Articles

Henderson and Krishnamurthi’s new paper—A Wolf in Sheep’s Attire: How Consent Enfeebles Our Fourth Amendment (hereinafter Sheep’s Attire)— powerfully advocates for reform to the consent doctrine. The paper is thoughtful, well-intentioned, and useful for challenging core assumptions about the law to help us evaluate how it should work. The piece is also fun to read as the authors breathe real-world insight into old doctrine. In the end, though the article flirts with a categorical rule about consent searches, and while the authors “think it categorically unreasonable for police to ask individuals to forgo their rights” in the context …

Community Caretaking Exception Saves Lives . . . The Supreme Court Disagrees, Gabriella Lorenzo

Touro Law Review

As many are aware, the Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant is necessary for said activities. While there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court recently held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home. Extending this exception to the home would allow police officers to enter and engage in functions that are unrelated to the investigation of a crime. Essentially, this exception would allow police to aid individuals and prevent serious, dangerous situations to protect the community. This Note discusses why the Supreme Court erred in …

The Modern Border: The Government Can Search . . . Anything?, Abigail Nusbaum

FIU Law Review

The evolution of modern technology has introduced new obstacles in interpreting the Fourth Amendment’s application to searches of peoples’ effects. Specifically, the longstanding exception to the Fourth Amendment permitting searches at the international border in the absence of probable cause does not so neatly apply to forensic searches of cell phones. Consequently, a circuit split has emerged on two aspects of the issue: the scope of the border exception and the requisite level of suspicion within that exception. The Supreme Court should find that forensic cell phone searches at the international border implicate Fourth Amendment privacy interests, requiring the border …

You Can’T Teach Old Katz New Tricks: It’S Time To Revitalize The Fourth Amendment, Jeremy Connell

University of Miami Law Review

For over half a century, the Court’s decision in Katz v. United States has been the lodestar for applying the Fourth Amendment. The Katz test has produced a litany of confusing and irreconcilable decisions in which the Court has carved exceptions into the doctrine and then carved exceptions into the exceptions. These decisions often leave lower courts with minimal guidance on how to apply the framework to new sets of facts and leave legal scholars and commenters befuddled and frustrated with the Court’s explanations for the rulings. The Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States represents the apex of Katz’s …

Was Atwater V. Lago Vista Decided Correctly? The Fourth Amendment's Shadow And Simulacra Of Police Brutality And The American Dream, Charles Lincoln

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

A New Test For The New Crime Exception, Colin Miller

Utah Law Review

The new crime exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule allows prosecutors to introduce evidence connected to new crimes committed by defendants who were illegally detained and/or questioned. Unfortunately, as illustrated in this Article, courts largely have applied this new crime exception without any analytical framework or regard for the severity of the initial police misconduct or the defendant’s response. Moreover, courts have begun applying the new crime exception to crimes such as giving a fake name in response to an un-Mirandized interrogation following a lawful arrest.

By doing so, courts have allowed the new crime exception to swallow two …