How the Post-Framing Adoption of the Bare-Probable-Cause Standard Drastically Expanded Government Arrest and Search Power

By Davies, Thomas Y. | Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer 2010 | Go to article overview

How the Post-Framing Adoption of the Bare-Probable-Cause Standard Drastically Expanded Government Arrest and Search Power


Davies, Thomas Y., Law and Contemporary Problems


I

INTRODUCTION

The general theme running through most of the articles in this symposium is that recent Supreme Court decisions have expanded police authority by relaxing--or eviscerating--the Fourth Amendment's "probable cause" standard for arrests and searches. I concur in that assessment: the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have pretty much destroyed the constitutional checks against arbitrary police intrusions. However, I write to expose another, earlier part of the story that has been almost entirely overlooked: that the now-accepted doctrine that probable cause alone can justify a criminal arrest or search did not emerge until well after the framing of the Bill of Rights in 1789 and constituted a significant departure from the criminal-procedure standards that the Framers of the Bill thought they had preserved.

Framing-era common-law criminal-procedure doctrine was accusatory in character and structured according to assessments of "necessity." In particular, arrest or search authority arose from, and depended upon, a foundational accusation by a named and potentially accountable complainant that a crime actually had been committed "in fact." Probable cause could suffice as to the identity of the criminal, but not for the fact of the crime. Thus, probable cause alone regarding the commission of a crime--what I call "bare probable cause"--was not a standard that the Framers intended to apply to criminal arrests or searches.

Instead, the notion that bare probable cause that a crime might have been committed suffices to justify a warrantless arrest, or issuance of an arrest warrant, dates back only to roughly the middle of the nineteenth century. The notion that bare probable cause suffices to justify a criminal search warrant has a similarly short history. Additionally, although the post-flaming adoption of bare probable cause as the standard for warrantless felony arrests increased opportunities for peace officers to make warrantless searches of arrestees incident to lawful arrests, the doctrine that bare probable cause could justify a warrantless search made other than as an incident of a lawful arrest was not invented until the 1920s. Thus, the post-flaming adoption of the bare-probable-cause standard by American judges was itself a drastic relaxation of the arrest and search protections that the American Framers thought they had preserved in constitutional provisions.

Indeed, when American judges adopted the bare-probable-cause standard, they effectively rejected the accusatory criminal procedure that the Framers had undertaken to preserve and instead opened the way for the development of modern investigatory criminal procedure. In particular, the adoption of the relaxed bare-probable-cause arrest standard facilitated the development of the discretionary authority that characterizes modern policing and thus drastically increased government criminal-justice power. And all this happened long before recent Supreme Court opinions drained the modern bare-probable-cause standard of significant content.

The reason this story will be unfamiliar is that the conventional history of what is now referred to as "search and seizure" doctrine has been shaped by bogus claims about the historical Fourth Amendment that appear in modern Supreme Court opinions. According to that account, the Framers intended for the first clause of the Fourth Amendment to create an across-the-board "reasonableness" standard for all government searches and seizures. Moreover, because "probable cause" was explicitly stated as the required justification for particularized warrants in the second clause of the Amendment, modern opinions have also construed bare probable cause to be the general "touchstone" for assessing "Fourth Amendment reasonableness." (1) Thus, the modern Supreme Court has treated bare probable cause that a crime might have been committed as the basic Fourth Amendment standard for justifying government arrests and searches, whether made with or without a warrant. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

How the Post-Framing Adoption of the Bare-Probable-Cause Standard Drastically Expanded Government Arrest and Search Power
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.