Policing Police Technology: The False Hope of Fourth Amendment Adjudicatory Oversight
Jennifer E. Laurin
University of Texas School of Law
July 7, 2011
U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 199
In the context of a SEALS Discussion Group concerning technology and the Fourth Amendment, this short essay explores why even the most elegantly drawn decision rules for applying the Fourth Amendment in today’s technological age will be rendered moot by a pervasively diminished remedial regime reflected in the Court’s recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence – in particular the exclusionary rule decisions in Herring v. United States, Davis v. United States, and a series of constitutional tort decisions deepening the protection of qualified immunity and narrowing the scope of municipal liability. It concludes that efforts at refashioning the substance of Fourth Amendment doctrine will ultimately bear little fruit in the functional project of constitutional adjudication – though they may be essential to important task of building a popular and political culture of valuing the Fourth Amendment.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 7
Keywords: Criminal Procedure, 4th Amendment, Exclusionary Rule, Techology, Katz, Herring, Davis, Qualified Immunity, Constitutional Tortworking papers series
Date posted: July 11, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.422 seconds