Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

EQUALITY IN THE STREETS Using Proportionality Analysis to Regulate Street Policing

EQUALITY IN THE STREETS Using Proportionality Analysis to Regulate Street Policing AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND EQUALITY | ISSUE 2 | 2022 AMERICAN JOURNAL of LAW and EQUALITY EQUALITY IN THE STREETS Using Proportionality Analysis to Regulate Street Policing Christopher Slobogin* The racially disparate impact and individual and collective costs of stop and frisk, misde- meanor arrests, and pretextual traffic stops have been well documented. Less widely noticed is the contrast between Supreme Court case law permitting these practices and the Court’s recent tendency to strictly regulate technologically enhanced searches that occur outside the street policing setting and that—coincidentally or not—happen to be more likely to affect the middle class. If, as the Court has indicated, electronic tracking and searches of digital records require probable cause that evidence of crime will be found, stops and frisks should also require probable cause that a crime has been committed (in the case of stops) or that evidence of crime will be found (in the case of post-detention searches). This equalization of regulatory regimes not only fits general notions of fairness. It is also mandated by the Fourth Amendment’sReasonablenessClauseand theCourt’s cases construing it, which endorse a “proportionality principle” that requires that the justification for a search or seizure be roughly proportionate to its http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Law and Equality MIT Press

EQUALITY IN THE STREETS Using Proportionality Analysis to Regulate Street Policing

Download PDF
33 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/mit-press/equality-in-the-streets-using-proportionality-analysis-to-regulate-Vi1v8DXpgn
Publisher
MIT Press
Copyright
© 2022 Christopher Slobogin. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND).
eISSN
2694-5711
DOI
10.1162/ajle_a_00031
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND EQUALITY | ISSUE 2 | 2022 AMERICAN JOURNAL of LAW and EQUALITY EQUALITY IN THE STREETS Using Proportionality Analysis to Regulate Street Policing Christopher Slobogin* The racially disparate impact and individual and collective costs of stop and frisk, misde- meanor arrests, and pretextual traffic stops have been well documented. Less widely noticed is the contrast between Supreme Court case law permitting these practices and the Court’s recent tendency to strictly regulate technologically enhanced searches that occur outside the street policing setting and that—coincidentally or not—happen to be more likely to affect the middle class. If, as the Court has indicated, electronic tracking and searches of digital records require probable cause that evidence of crime will be found, stops and frisks should also require probable cause that a crime has been committed (in the case of stops) or that evidence of crime will be found (in the case of post-detention searches). This equalization of regulatory regimes not only fits general notions of fairness. It is also mandated by the Fourth Amendment’sReasonablenessClauseand theCourt’s cases construing it, which endorse a “proportionality principle” that requires that the justification for a search or seizure be roughly proportionate to its

Journal

American Journal of Law and Equality – MIT Press

Published: Aug 15, 2022

There are no references for this article.