Javascript must be enabled to continue!
The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment
View through CrossRef
This book examines the history of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. It concentrates on the changes in interpretation that have taken place after the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1961, decided in Mapp v. Ohio to apply the exclusionary rule, which makes illegally seized evidence inadmissible in court, to the actions of state governments. In The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment, Thomas N. McInnis demonstrates that prior to Mapp the Court relied on the warrant rule, which with limited exceptions emphasized the need to have a search warrant prior to a search or seizure. Due to the unhappiness that post-Warren Courts had with the application of the exclusionary rule, they reinterpreted the Fourth Amendment using the expansive language that the Warren Court had used in Fourth Amendment cases. In doing so, they broadened the government's powers to search and seize under the Fourth Amendment by developing new exceptions to the warrant rule, developing both the reasonableness approach and special needs test to the Fourth Amendment, limiting the expectations of privacy that citizens have, and narrowing those areas actually protected by the amendment. McInnis also examines how the Court has limited the effect of the exclusionary rule by reinterpreting when it needs to be applied and by creating new exceptions. The book ends by examining the emerging Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the Roberts Court and assessing the future of the Fourth Amendment in a post-9/11 world.
Title: The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment
Description:
This book examines the history of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court.
It concentrates on the changes in interpretation that have taken place after the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1961, decided in Mapp v.
Ohio to apply the exclusionary rule, which makes illegally seized evidence inadmissible in court, to the actions of state governments.
In The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment, Thomas N.
McInnis demonstrates that prior to Mapp the Court relied on the warrant rule, which with limited exceptions emphasized the need to have a search warrant prior to a search or seizure.
Due to the unhappiness that post-Warren Courts had with the application of the exclusionary rule, they reinterpreted the Fourth Amendment using the expansive language that the Warren Court had used in Fourth Amendment cases.
In doing so, they broadened the government's powers to search and seize under the Fourth Amendment by developing new exceptions to the warrant rule, developing both the reasonableness approach and special needs test to the Fourth Amendment, limiting the expectations of privacy that citizens have, and narrowing those areas actually protected by the amendment.
McInnis also examines how the Court has limited the effect of the exclusionary rule by reinterpreting when it needs to be applied and by creating new exceptions.
The book ends by examining the emerging Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the Roberts Court and assessing the future of the Fourth Amendment in a post-9/11 world.
Related Results
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com
Abstract
Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
Framing the Fourth
Framing the Fourth
Our knowledge of the Fourth Amendment's history was fundamentally transformed when William Cuddihy completed his Ph.D. dissertation in 1990. Cuddihy's study was the most comprehens...
Public Law in the State Courts in 1925–1926
Public Law in the State Courts in 1925–1926
Validity of Procedure. In the summer of 1925 the appellate division of the supreme court of New York held that the City Home Rule Amendment of 1923 had not been legally adopted and...
Pregnant Prisoners in Shackles
Pregnant Prisoners in Shackles
Photo by niu niu on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
Shackling prisoners has been implemented as standard procedure when transporting prisoners in labor and during childbirth. This procedure ensu...
Jackson–Vanik Amendment and Development of Soviet-American Relations in 1972-1975
Jackson–Vanik Amendment and Development of Soviet-American Relations in 1972-1975
The article is devoted to one of the key subjects of the detente period – the history of development and adoption of Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. The significa...
Legal Implications of Pakistan's 26th Constitutional Amendment: A Critical Analysis
Legal Implications of Pakistan's 26th Constitutional Amendment: A Critical Analysis
The 26th Constitutional Amendment of Pakistan represents a significant milestone in the country’s constitutional evolution, primarily addressing the longstanding demand for enhance...
Legal Implications of Pakistan's 26th Constitutional Amendment: A Critical Analysis
Legal Implications of Pakistan's 26th Constitutional Amendment: A Critical Analysis
The 26th Constitutional Amendment of Pakistan represents a significant milestone in the country’s constitutional evolution, primarily addressing the longstanding demand for enhance...
Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd, William Michael Campbell and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe
Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd, William Michael Campbell and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe
385Expropriation — Agricultural land — Taking of property — Land reform programme in Zimbabwe — Zimbabwe compulsorily acquiring applicants’ agricultural lands — Whether lawful — Wh...

