A Content Analysis of Post-Jones Federal Appellate Cases

IF 0.4 Q2 Social Sciences
C. Totten, James A. Purdon
{"title":"A Content Analysis of Post-Jones Federal Appellate Cases","authors":"C. Totten, James A. Purdon","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2017.20.2.233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States Supreme Court in 2012 in United States v. Jones changed the legal test for what constitutes a police search under the Fourth Amendment. After Jones , a search occurs when: (1) an individual’s privacy rights are violated ( “Katz” test); and/or (2) an individual’s property is trespassed upon ( “Jones” test). From 1967 until Jones , only the Katz test was used. In light of this significant change, this study explores two questions using a content analysis approach: (1) the choice of legal test used by federal appellate courts to decide the “search” question (i.e., the Jones test, Katz test, or both tests), and (2) these courts’ holding regarding whether a “search” occurred. Most of these courts are relying upon Jones in some fashion; however, Jones has not prevented these courts from frequently applying Katz . Though reliance on Jones alone has led to uniform determinations by courts of a “search” and hence enhanced Fourth Amendment protections, overall post- Jones there are nearly an equal number of courts finding a “search” and “no search.” When courts apply Katz alone to evaluate a search, they have held no search occurred. In sum, Jones’ impact on Fourth Amendment search law has been incremental and gradual.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"46 1","pages":"233-308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2017.20.2.233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court in 2012 in United States v. Jones changed the legal test for what constitutes a police search under the Fourth Amendment. After Jones , a search occurs when: (1) an individual’s privacy rights are violated ( “Katz” test); and/or (2) an individual’s property is trespassed upon ( “Jones” test). From 1967 until Jones , only the Katz test was used. In light of this significant change, this study explores two questions using a content analysis approach: (1) the choice of legal test used by federal appellate courts to decide the “search” question (i.e., the Jones test, Katz test, or both tests), and (2) these courts’ holding regarding whether a “search” occurred. Most of these courts are relying upon Jones in some fashion; however, Jones has not prevented these courts from frequently applying Katz . Though reliance on Jones alone has led to uniform determinations by courts of a “search” and hence enhanced Fourth Amendment protections, overall post- Jones there are nearly an equal number of courts finding a “search” and “no search.” When courts apply Katz alone to evaluate a search, they have held no search occurred. In sum, Jones’ impact on Fourth Amendment search law has been incremental and gradual.
后琼斯联邦上诉案件的内容分析
2012年,美国最高法院在《美国诉琼斯案》(United States v. Jones)一案中改变了宪法第四修正案规定的警察搜查的法律标准。在琼斯之后,搜索发生在:(1)个人隐私权受到侵犯(“卡茨”测试);和/或(2)个人财产被侵犯(“琼斯”测试)。从1967年到琼斯,只使用了卡茨测试。鉴于这一重大变化,本研究使用内容分析方法探讨了两个问题:(1)联邦上诉法院在决定“搜查”问题时使用的法律测试的选择(即琼斯测试,卡茨测试,或两种测试),以及(2)这些法院对“搜查”是否发生的看法。大多数法院都在某种程度上依赖于琼斯;然而,琼斯并没有阻止这些法院经常适用卡茨。虽然仅依靠琼斯案就导致了法院对“搜查”的统一裁决,从而加强了第四修正案的保护,但总体而言,在琼斯案之后,发现“搜查”和“不搜查”的法院数量几乎相等。当法院单独使用卡茨来评估搜查时,他们认为没有发生搜查。总而言之,琼斯案对第四修正案搜查法的影响是渐进的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Focused on examinations of crime and punishment in domestic, transnational, and international contexts, New Criminal Law Review provides timely, innovative commentary and in-depth scholarly analyses on a wide range of criminal law topics. The journal encourages a variety of methodological and theoretical approaches and is a crucial resource for criminal law professionals in both academia and the criminal justice system. The journal publishes thematic forum sections and special issues, full-length peer-reviewed articles, book reviews, and occasional correspondence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信