NCJ Number
86029
Journal
Minnesota Law Review Volume: 67 Issue: 1 Dated: (October 1982) Pages: 89-177
Date Published
1982
Length
89 pages
Annotation
This article examines whether and to what extent the fourth amendment's requirement of reasonableness does or should go beyond requiring a precise warrant and evidence adequate to justify an intrusion upon protected interests.
Abstract
The fourth amendment requirement that searches and seizures be reasonable, as enforced by the exclusionary rule, has become a major vehicle for Supreme Court efforts to impose limits upon State law enforcement activity. The Court emphasizes two aspects of fourth amendment reasonableness. It has required a precise warrant and has insisted upon adequate evidence to justify the search. Using the analysis that the Court has established for determining the scope of the fourth amendment coverage, the appropriate role of the amendment with regard to searches and seizures may be articulated. The amendment should be read to prohibit the use of more force than reasonably appears necessary to execute a search or seizure, and to prohibit the use of deadly force to make nonarrest detentions and arrests of nondangerous suspects. Nighttime searches and entries should be considered reasonable only if the police establish probable cause to believe that a nighttime search is essential to success. The duration of searches should be no longer than is reasonably necessary. Custodial arrests for minor offenses in which custody serves no significant State interest should be regarded as unreasonable. Similarly, the State's possession of seized items should be limited to the time necessary to serve the purpose for which the article was seized. The court should constitutionalize some incidental procedural requirements designed to implement reasonableness in these contexts. The article provides 302 footnotes.