The Death of Suspicion
Fabio Arcila, Jr. Jr.
Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
March 1, 2010
William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 1275, 2010
This article argues that neither the presumptive warrant requirement nor the presumptive suspicion requirement are correct. Though representative of the common law, they do not reflect the totality of our historic experience, which includes civil search practices. More importantly, modern developments - such as urban life and technological advancements, the rise of the regulatory state, and security concerns post-9/11 - have sufficiently changed circumstances so that these rules are not just unworkable now, they are demonstrably wrong. Worst of all, adhering to them has prevented us from formulating a more coherent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. A new paradigm confronts us, in which reasonableness serves as the constitutional touchstone for all governmental searches, and where neither warrants nor suspicion are primary mechanisms for protecting Fourth Amendment values. Therefore, new ways must be identified of assuring adequate Fourth Amendment protections. To that end some broad guidelines are offered.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 68
Keywords: Fourth Amendment, 4th Amendment, search, seizure, warrant, warrants, suspicion, suspect, reasonableness, legal history, history, originalism
JEL Classification: K14Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 28, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.703 seconds