Indianapolis v. Edmond and the Original Understanding of the Fourth Amendment
In this article I examine to what extent Indianapolis v. Edmond is in keeping with the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment. I conclude that the Founders were much more concerned with searches of real property, often insisting, not only on suspicion, but also a on warrant when searches of real property are involved. Secondly, while the Founders did not consider warrants necessary for searches and seizures off of real property (which for the sake of simplicity I call searches in public areas) the evidence suggests suspicion was required. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment was a direct response to the British general warrant, which did not require particularized individual suspicion. I suggest that the suspicionless search in Indianapolis is not in keeping with the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
Constitutional Law | Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure
Date of this Version
Bruce Newman, "Indianapolis v. Edmond and the Original Understanding of the Fourth Amendment" (October 16, 2003). bepress Legal Series. bepress Legal Series.Working Paper 93.