Posted by David Bernstein:
Pop Quiz on the History of the Fourth Amendment:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_30-2007_10_06.shtml#1191165186


   In 1925, the Supreme Court [1]upheld a warrantless automobile search
   against a Fourth Amendment challenge. The dissent argued that Fourth
   Amendment protections should apply to cars as well to homes:

     And it is argued that the words and history of this section
     indicate the intent of Congress to distinguish between the
     necessity for warrants in order to search private dwelling and the
     right to search automobiles without one. Evidently Congress
     regarded the searching of private dwellings as matter of much
     graver consequence than some other searches and distinguished
     between them by declaring the former criminal. But the connection
     between this distinction and the legality of plaintiffs in error's
     arrest is not apparent. Nor can I find reason for inquiring
     concerning the validity of the distinction under the Fourth
     Amendment. Of course, the distinction is valid, and so are some
     seizures. But what of it? The act made nothing legal which
     theretofore was unlawful, and to conclude that by declaring the
     unauthorized search of a private dwelling criminal Congress
     intended to remove ancient restrictions from other searches and
     from arrests as well, would seem impossible.

     While the Fourth Amendment denounces only unreasonable seizures
     unreasonableness often depends upon the means adopted. Here the
     seizure followed an unlawful arrest, and therefore became itself
     unlawful-as plainly unlawful as the seizure within the home so
     vigorously denounced in Weeks v. United States...

   Here's the quiz. The two dissenters were (a) noted civil libertarians
   Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes; or (b) reactionary
   "Horsemen" McReynolds and Sutherland.

   The answer is "b", with McReynolds writing the opinion. Brandeis and
   Holmes joined Chief Justice Taft's majority opinion.

References

   1. http://supreme.justia.com/us/267/132/case.html

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to