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: 94408 Find in a Library
Title: Fourth Amendment - An Immodest Proposal
Journal: American Journal of Criminal Law  Volume:11  Issue:3  Dated:(November 1983)  Pages:293-320
Author(s): J M J Bartee
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 27
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The fourth amendment should read that nonseizure-oriented searches take place without a warrant, although safeguards not usually required for a warranted search may be required to satisfy the reasonableness clause of the amendment. The cause required to justify a nonseizure-oriented search is never that which is required for a seizure-oriented search.
Abstract: The reasonableness clause, not the warrant clause, is the lodestar guiding all governmental conduct under the fourth amendment, as the reasonableness clause requires that even warranted searches to be executed in a reasonable manner. There are no exceptions to the warrant clause; there are simply reasonable searches which do not fall within the warrant clause. There is no such thing as a warrant based on other than probable cause as traditionally understood. The theory outlined in the article demonstrates that inspection-oriented searches fall without the warrant clause and that strictures imposed by the reasonableness clause on the execution of inspection-oriented searches are as severe and even more severe than those imposed by administrative warrant. The theory justifies every present warrant exception by demonstrating that none is solely seizure-oriented, or if one is, that it is justified by a lack of practical ability in obtaining a warrant. A diagram encompasses all present exceptions to the warrant clause and explains when a warrant is required. This will depend on whether or not there was governmental conduct, an intrusion on a reasonbale expectation of privacy, the class or type of proposed invasion of privacy was permissible, and the search contemplated was solely seizure-oriented. It will also depend upon the quantum of information necessary to justify a particular administrative inspection-orientation search, the safeguards required by the reasonableness clause in executing the search, and whether or not the quantum of information required to justify a search made pursuant to warrant is probable cause and whether the presumption of a warrant requirement is rebutted if the search is seizure-oriented. A total of 78 footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Right of privacy; Right to Due Process; Search and seizure laws; Search warrants; Warrantless search
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.