U.S. Supreme Court Decisions in Fourth Amendment Cases (1961–2009)

• Author: Kevin Buckler,Mario Davila,Steve Wilson
• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016811419652
• Subject Matter: Articles

Articles

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

in Fourth Amendment Cases

(1961–2009): A Test of the

Legal Subculture, Democratic

Subculture, Negotiation/

Synthesis, Resource Capability,

and Social Background

Hypotheses

Kevin Buckler

1

, Mario Davila

1

, and Steve Wilson

1

Abstract

This study explores the capacity of several different theoretical perspectives to account for variation

in U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment decisions (whether the case outcome favored the

government or the individual). The study developed measures of Richardson and Vines and Crow

and Gertz commentary on legal subculture and democratic subculture concerns of the judiciary

as well as negotiation/synthesis of these concerns. The study also developed and tested measures

of the resource capability thesis of Galanter and the recent work of George applying social

background theory to the behavior of U.S. Supreme Court justices. The findings reveal support

for each of these theoretical perspectives. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

fourth amendment, legal empiricism, appellate courts, U.S. Supreme Court, legal subculture,

democratic subculture, negotiation/synthesis, resource capability, social background

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, sup-

ported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or

things to be seized.

Text of the Fourth Amendment

1

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at Brownsville, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kevin Buckler, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort Brown, Brownsville, TX 78521,

USA

Email: Kevin.buckler@utb.edu

Criminal Justice Review

36(4) 393-413

ª2011 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016811419652

http://cjr.sagepub.com

The concept of legal empiricism generally has involved research in the areas of law and courts

where the research ‘‘uses statistical techniques and analyses’’ and the study ‘‘employs data (includ-

ing systematically coded judicial opinions) that facilitate descriptions of or inferences to a larger

sample or population as well as replication by other scholars.’’ (Heise, 2002, pp. 819–820). Scholars

have used legal empirical methods to better understand criminal court processes. While most of the

empirical literature on criminal courts that is grounded in legal empiricism has focused attention on

lower (trial and pretrial) court decision making (partial list: Cauffman et al., 2007; Crow & Gertz,

2008; Fishel, Gabbidon, & Hummer, 2007; Franklin & Fearn, 2008; Gabbidon, Marzette, & Peter-

son, 2007; Johnson, Ulmer, & Kramer, 2008; Sevigny, 2009; Williams, Demuth, & Holcomb, 2007),

there has also been some published literature on appellate decision making (Chilton & Woods, 2006;

Emmert, 1991; Gabbidon, Kowal, Jordan, Roberts, & Vincenzi, 2008; Lanier & Miller, 2000;

Neubauer, 1985, 1991, 1992; Phillips & Grattet, 2000; Radelet & Vandiver, 1983; Segal, 1984;

Smith, 2003; Williams, 1991, 1994, 1995a, 1995b). The scant empirical attention to understanding

appellate court processing of criminal justice cases is quite problematic. Appellate courts establish

important policy parameters that lower courts, police, and correctional officials are legally bound

to follow.

This study addresses this gap in research by providing a multivariate analysis of case out-

comes in the 253 Fourth Amendment cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court since the

1961 landmark decision in Mapp v. Ohio (6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 1968). Most scholarly work on

issues pertaining to the Fourth Amendment have taken the form of law review articles (see, for

instance, Berger, 2003; Bloss, 1998; Bradley, 1993; Call, 2000; Hughes, 2001, 2003, 2006;

McCoy, 1996; Misner, 1991; Murphy & Wilds, 2001; Simmons, 2007; Vaughn & del Carmen,

1997; Williams & Arrigo, 1999; Worrall, 2000, 2001; Yeager, 1993). Only three prior studies

have used empirical methods to explore court behavior as it relates to the Fourth Amendment.

In his seminal empirically based study, Segal (1984) conducted a multivariate analysis of

Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth Amendment cases from 1962 to 1981. Segal concluded

that despite popular and scholarly sentiment that U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth

Amendment were ‘‘a mess’’ with little to no rational patterning of the outcomes, the case deci-

sions were ‘‘much more ordered than had commonly been believed’’ (p. 891). Segal discovered

that legal variables relating to the Court’s assessment of reasonableness of the search were impor-

tant predictors of the Court’s decisions. Segal’s study also reported that the U.S. Supreme Court

was more likely to favor the government in cases where the U.S. Government was a party to the

litigation. In a subsequent study of U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment cases, Smith (2003)

provided a descriptive empirical analysis of criminal cases decided by the Rehnquist Court and

found that the Court, contrary to popular perception, had delivered many opinions supportive of

individual rights. Finally, Chilton and Woods (2006) used content analysis methods to empiri-

cally examine linguistic patterns in the decisions of the Rehnquist Court from 1986 to 1994. They

argued that the linguistic patterns used in the decisions conformed to a ‘‘moral justification

model’’ whereby the Court assessed the moral virtue of ‘‘druggie’’ defendants in its opinions.

The current study utilizes a similar approach to the seminal study of Segal but for a larger time

span. The current analysis is important and advances the extant literature on U.S. Supreme Court

decision making in a variety of ways. The study presents a more precise theoretical framework for

understanding U.S. Supreme Court decision making in these cases. In this regard, the current

study utilizes the theoretical work of Richardson and Vines (1970), Crow and Gertz (2008), and

Savelsberg (1992) to understand the role of different variables in explaining U.S. Supreme Court

case outcomes. It is suggested that U.S. Supreme Court decisions favoring the government can be

understood in the context of a negotiation and synthesizing process whereby the Court weighs com-

peting demands of a legalistic subculture versus a democratic subculture, as well as tensions between

formal rationality and substantive rationality.

394 Criminal Justice Review 36(4)