SSRN: Redefining Fourth Amendment Reasonableness: A Crime-Severity Model for Terry Stops

SSRN: Redefining Fourth Amendment Reasonableness: A Crime-Severity Model for Terry Stops by David Keenan & Tina Mary Thomas. Abstract:

This Comment joins a growing chorus of scholarship criticizing the lack of proportionality analysis in the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Rather than bemoan the current state of legal doctrine, we offer a practical test that courts could use to determine the permissible scope of pedestrian Terry stops. Specifically, we propose that courts adopt a crime-severity model that distinguishes non-criminal, malum prohibitum infractions punishable by fine only (like jaywalking, simple trespass, and open container laws), from malum in se misdemeanors or felonies punishable by jail time. Two state supreme courts — Massachusetts’ and Washington’s — have already adopted such an approach. As a result, police in those states may only detain persons suspected of non-criminal infractions briefly for the purpose of writing tickets; they cannot use non-criminal conduct to justify intrusive stop-and-frisks. Our Comment takes these decisions as a starting point to engage in a broader debate about crime-severity’s usefulness as a rubric for assessing police conduct under the Fourth Amendment. The recent adoption by many states of laws decriminalizing marijuana possession raises the stakes of the debate and helps underscore the practical significance of our contribution.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.