New law review article: “Fourth Amendment Remedial Equilibration”

David B. Owens, Fourth Amendment Remedial Equilibration: A Comment on Herring v. United States and Pearson v. Callahan, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 563 (2010). First paragraph:

The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but determining what this right means and how it should be vindicated has, to put it mildly, long been controversial. In fact, because of the “wide applicability of government intrusions, ranging from countless thousands of daily intrusions at airports, traffic stops, drug testing, traditional criminal law enforcement practices, regulatory intrusions[,] … and many other searches and seizures, the Amendment is the most commonly implicated and litigated part of our Constitution.”5 Perhaps the most contentious element in the controversy surrounding the Fourth Amendment is determining how to enforce it—whether by the exclusionary rule, which requires unlawfully obtained evidence to be suppressed from a criminal prosecution; a civil damages remedy; an administrative sanction; or some other means.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.