skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 200490 Find in a Library
Title: Roadblock Too Far? Justice O'Connor's Left Turn on the Fourth
Journal: Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice  Volume:19  Issue:2  Dated:May 2003  Pages:182-204
Author(s): Marvin Zalman; Elsa Shartsis
Editor(s): Chris Eskridge
Date Published: May 2003
Page Count: 23
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article explores Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s jurisprudence and decisionmaking style with a shift from a conservative position to a moderate position and analyzes her recent Fourth Amendment opinions.
Abstract: Recognized as the most influential justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s position on the Supreme Court is one of a “pragmatic conservative” providing one of the swing votes that decide cases. This article presents a brief overview of Justice O’Connor’s jurisprudence, examining her judicial philosophy, style of judging, and policy preferences. Justice O’Connor’s opinions in five recent cases are reviewed and include: City of Indianapolis versus Edmond (2000), Ferguson versus City of Charleston (2001), Atwater versus City of Lago Vista (2001), Illinois versus McArthur (2001), and Kyllo versus United States (2001). Justice O’Conner’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence notes the shift in her decisionmaking pattern over the years from a very conservative position to a more moderate position. This article examines whether her recent Fourth Amendment decisions and opinions fit her established jurisprudential style and the degree to which her decisionmaking can be said to be political. With all that is known of Justice O’Connor’s jurisprudence, it leads many to conclude that she would vote to uphold the Government in cases arising under the Patriot Act (2001) unless the Government’s action were so egregious as to offend the entire Court. References
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Conservatism; Court system; Female judges; Judges; Judicial decisions; Political influences
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.