RT Article
T1 Operating outside the spirit of the law: How police employ “legal” standards to justify questionable searches and seizures
JF International journal of police science & management
VO 24
IS 3
SP 298
OP 312
A1 Nir, Esther
A2 Liu, Siyu
LA English
YR 2022
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1814282092
AB The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the years, court precedents have guided determinations of reasonableness and provided a legal structure for police to follow. In two influential decisions, the Supreme Court validated pretextual traffic stops in which the motorist committed a minor traffic violation (Whren v United States, 1996), and established the standard of reasonable suspicion for brief investigatory stops and limited weapon searches (Terry v Ohio, 1968). Using 42 suppression motions filed in a US state, we examine whether and how police apply these legal parameters to case patterns to justify stops, searches and seizures. We find that police use pretexts to justify traffic stops, and often rely on conclusory and laconic descriptions to support determinations of reasonable suspicion. Although often upheld by courts, these applications of the law are contrary to the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.
K1 Evidence
K1 Exclusionary Rule
K1 suppression motions
K1 Criminal procedure
K1 Policing
DO 10.1177/14613557221085499