The Death of the Fourth Amendment Under the Rehnquist Court: Where is Original Intent When we Need it?

J. Davey
{"title":"The Death of the Fourth Amendment Under the Rehnquist Court: Where is Original Intent When we Need it?","authors":"J. Davey","doi":"10.1080/0735648X.1994.9721507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The U.S. Supreme Court has significantly modified the meaning of the Fourth Amendment over the past two decades. Numerous police practices that very often have developed as part of the “war-on-drugs” have been ruled to be acceptable. The framers of the Fourth Amendment required a showing of “probable cause” before a search or seizure could be undertaken by police. While it is true that some exceptions to the requirement of “probable cause” had been allowed by the Supreme Court prior to Burger's appointment as Chief Justice, these exceptions were very carefully limited and supported by specific public policy rationales. The Court under Burger and Rehnquist have added so many exceptions to the requirement of probable cause that there are few restrictions on police searches and seizures under the present interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. This paper will argue that the “war-on-drugs” is far more likely to destroy the Fourth Amendment than it is to destroy the drug problem and Congress or State ...","PeriodicalId":415563,"journal":{"name":"The American Court System","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Court System","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.1994.9721507","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The U.S. Supreme Court has significantly modified the meaning of the Fourth Amendment over the past two decades. Numerous police practices that very often have developed as part of the “war-on-drugs” have been ruled to be acceptable. The framers of the Fourth Amendment required a showing of “probable cause” before a search or seizure could be undertaken by police. While it is true that some exceptions to the requirement of “probable cause” had been allowed by the Supreme Court prior to Burger's appointment as Chief Justice, these exceptions were very carefully limited and supported by specific public policy rationales. The Court under Burger and Rehnquist have added so many exceptions to the requirement of probable cause that there are few restrictions on police searches and seizures under the present interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. This paper will argue that the “war-on-drugs” is far more likely to destroy the Fourth Amendment than it is to destroy the drug problem and Congress or State ...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
第四修正案在伦奎斯特法院的死亡:当我们需要它的时候,初衷在哪里?
在过去的二十年里,美国最高法院对第四修正案的含义进行了重大修改。作为“禁毒战争”的一部分而经常发展起来的许多警察做法已被裁定为可接受的。第四修正案的制定者要求警方在进行搜查或扣押之前出示“可能的理由”。虽然在伯格被任命为首席大法官之前,最高法院确实允许了一些“可能原因”要求的例外情况,但这些例外情况受到了非常谨慎的限制,并得到了具体公共政策理由的支持。伯格和伦奎斯特案的最高法院在合理理由的要求上增加了如此多的例外,以至于根据目前对第四修正案的解释,对警察的搜查和扣押几乎没有限制。本文将论证“禁毒战争”更有可能摧毁第四修正案,而不是摧毁毒品问题和国会或州……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Contemporary Look at the Effects of Rape Law Reform: How Far Have we Really Come?* Commentary Should Penal Rehabilitationism be Revived? Hands-Off, Hands-On, Hands-Semi-Off: A Discussion of the Current Legal Test Used by the United States Supreme Court to Decide Inmates' Rights The Death of the Fourth Amendment Under the Rehnquist Court: Where is Original Intent When we Need it?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1