Sep 022011
 
 September 2, 2011  Posted by  Court, Surveillance

L. Rush Atkinson, law clerk to the Honorable Julia Smith Gibbons, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has an article in Georgetown Law Journal, Issue 99.6 (August 2011)> Here’s the abstract:

The Fourth Amendment protects the innocent only from “unreasonable” searches. In light of the limited nature of this constitutional safeguard, law abiders consistently take precautions to avoid government searches. This Article considers why constitutional jurisprudence limits the protection of the innocent to “unreasonable” searches, thereby forcing them to alter their behavior. The most satisfying answer derives from an often-overlooked fact: Searches of innocent persons are often “bilateral accidents,” meaning that both the innocent suspect and the police can affect the likelihood that an erroneous search will occur. In bilateral conditions, a reasonableness rule induces both the searcher and the searched to take optimal care to avoid mistaken searches, while other rules embodied in constitutional protections—like that within the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment—cannot.

By assigning costs for erroneous-but-reasonable searches to the innocent, the Fourth Amendment functions as an important regulatory device, channeling law abiders away from activity that unintentionally masks others’ criminal enterprises. Thus, the Amendment regulates the very people that it protects from governmental intrusions. This Article refers to this duality as the “bilateral Fourth Amendment” and argues that the Amendment’s incentives for the innocent are best understood as a duty for law-abiding people to act reasonably.

At the same time, identifying the “bilateral” nature of searches should influence the legal rules dictating what evidence police may use as grounds to search a suspect. Because the innocent alter their behavior based on which activities the government deems “suspicious,” rules about cause and suspicion cannot singly turn on evidence’s probative value; they must also account for the socially beneficial activity that is reduced by labeling behavior “suspicious.”

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.