同意搜查:评估一种常见的、具有高度自由裁量权的警察做法的效用

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1111/jels.12377
Megan Dias, Derek A. Epp, Marcel Roman, Hannah L. Walker
{"title":"同意搜查:评估一种常见的、具有高度自由裁量权的警察做法的效用","authors":"Megan Dias,&nbsp;Derek A. Epp,&nbsp;Marcel Roman,&nbsp;Hannah L. Walker","doi":"10.1111/jels.12377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We analyze the consequences of using driver consent as a basis for initializing a traffic stop-and-search compared to those searches based on probable cause. We find that consent searches are less likely to result in contraband recovery than are probable cause searches. Moreover, police agencies with a relatively higher reliance on consent searches find similar amounts of contraband and make a similar number of arrests as agencies doing much less searching but with a greater reliance on probable cause. These patterns are amplified along racial lines, and there is no discernible relationship between the use of consent searches and crime. We also provide causal evidence that corroborate these observational findings by examining the consequences of a Texas Highway Patrol policy, which suddenly increased the consent search rate in two South Texas counties. We show the contraband recovery rate discontinuously decreases when the consent search rate discontinuously increases.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"21 1","pages":"35-91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12377","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consent searches: Evaluating the usefulness of a common and highly discretionary police practice\",\"authors\":\"Megan Dias,&nbsp;Derek A. Epp,&nbsp;Marcel Roman,&nbsp;Hannah L. Walker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jels.12377\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We analyze the consequences of using driver consent as a basis for initializing a traffic stop-and-search compared to those searches based on probable cause. We find that consent searches are less likely to result in contraband recovery than are probable cause searches. Moreover, police agencies with a relatively higher reliance on consent searches find similar amounts of contraband and make a similar number of arrests as agencies doing much less searching but with a greater reliance on probable cause. These patterns are amplified along racial lines, and there is no discernible relationship between the use of consent searches and crime. We also provide causal evidence that corroborate these observational findings by examining the consequences of a Texas Highway Patrol policy, which suddenly increased the consent search rate in two South Texas counties. We show the contraband recovery rate discontinuously decreases when the consent search rate discontinuously increases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"35-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12377\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12377\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12377","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们分析了使用驾驶员同意作为交通拦截和搜查的初始依据与基于正当理由的搜查相比所产生的后果。我们发现,同意搜查比有正当理由的搜查更不可能找到违禁品。此外,相对更依赖于同意搜查的警察机构发现的违禁品数量和逮捕的人数与搜查次数少得多但更依赖于正当理由的机构相似。这些模式在种族界限上被放大,而使用同意搜查与犯罪之间没有明显的关系。我们还提供了因果证据,通过研究得克萨斯州公路巡警的一项政策所产生的后果,证实了这些观察结果,该政策突然提高了得克萨斯州南部两个县的同意搜查率。我们的研究表明,当同意搜查率不连续上升时,违禁品回收率会不连续下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Consent searches: Evaluating the usefulness of a common and highly discretionary police practice

We analyze the consequences of using driver consent as a basis for initializing a traffic stop-and-search compared to those searches based on probable cause. We find that consent searches are less likely to result in contraband recovery than are probable cause searches. Moreover, police agencies with a relatively higher reliance on consent searches find similar amounts of contraband and make a similar number of arrests as agencies doing much less searching but with a greater reliance on probable cause. These patterns are amplified along racial lines, and there is no discernible relationship between the use of consent searches and crime. We also provide causal evidence that corroborate these observational findings by examining the consequences of a Texas Highway Patrol policy, which suddenly increased the consent search rate in two South Texas counties. We show the contraband recovery rate discontinuously decreases when the consent search rate discontinuously increases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Market versus policy responses to novel occupational risks Network analysis of lawyer referral markets: Evidence from Indiana Emotional bargaining after litigation: An experimental study of the Coase theorem Automating Abercrombie: Machine-learning trademark distinctiveness
×
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