The influence of law in the supreme court's search-and-seizure jurisprudence

American Politics Research

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 33-55

  Kritzer, Herbert M ^a   Richards, Mark J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Judicial behavior; Jurisprudential regime; Search and seizure; U.S. Supreme Court

Indexed keywords

EID: 11144277797     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04264987     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).
2. Chicago Police Department v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
3. Clayton, C. W., & Gillman, H. (Eds.). (1999). Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
6. Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
7. Greenhalgh, W. W. (2003). The Fourth Amendment handbook: A chronological survey of Supreme Court decisions (2nd ed.). Chicago: American Bar Association.
8. Hall, D. E. (1997). Criminal procedure and the Constitution. St. Paul, MN: West.
9. Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J. E. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. New York: Academic Press.
10. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
11. Kritzer, H. M., & Richards, M. J. (2003). Jurisprudential regimes and Supreme Court decision making: The Lemon regime and Establishment Clause cases. Law & Society Review, 37, 827-840.
12. LaFave, W. R. (1996). Search and seizure: A treatise on the Fourth Amendment (Vols. 1-5, 3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
13. LaFave, W. R. (2004). Pocket part for search and seizure: A treatise on the Fourth Amendment (Vols. 1-5, 3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
14. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
15. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
16. Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2002a). Assessing preference change on the U.S. Supreme Court.
17. Unpublished manuscript retrieved from http://adm.wustl.edu/change/change.pdf.
18. Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K.M. (2002b). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis, 10, 134-153.
19. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984).
20. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 (1984).
21. Moylan, C. E., Jr. (2003). A conceptualization of the Fourth Amendment. In W. W. Greenhalgh (Ed.), The Fourth Amendment handbook: A chronological survey of Supreme Court decisions (2nd ed., pp. 1-21). Chicago: American Bar Association.
22. Nagel, T. (1997). The last word. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
24. O' Brien, D. M. ( 1997). Constitutional law and politics: Vol. 2. Civil rights and civil liberties (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.
25. O'Brien, D. M. (2003). Constitutional law and politics: Vol. 2. Civil rights and civil liberties (5th ed.). New York: Norton.
26. Richards, M. J., & Kritzer, H. M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.
27. Segal, J. A. (1984). Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review, 78, 891-900.
28. Segal, J. A. (1985). Measuring change on the Supreme Court: Examining alternative models. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 461-479.
29. Segal, J. A. (1986). Supreme Court justices as human decision makers: An individual-level analysis of the search and seizure cases. Journal of Politics, 48, 938-955.
30. Segal, J. A., & Cover, A. D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review, 83, 557-566.
31. Segal, J. A., Epstein, L., Cameron, C. M., & Spaeth, H. J. ( 1995). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices revisited. Journal of Politics, 57, 812-823.
32. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1994, Spring). The authors respond. Law and Courts, 4, 10-12.
34. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1996). The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court justices. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 971-1003.
35. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Segura v. U.S., 468 U.S. 796 (1984).
37. Shapiro, M. (1964). Law and politics in the Supreme Court. London: Free Press of Glencoe.
38. Shapiro, M. (1968). The Supreme Court and administrative agencies. New York: Free Press.
39. Smith, R. M. ( 1988). Political jurisprudence, the "new institutionalism," and the future of public law. American Political Science Review, 82, 89-108.
40. Spaeth, H. J., & Segal, J. A. (1999). Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedence on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 902 (1984).
41. Walhbeck, P., Spriggs, J., & Maltzman, F. ( 1998). Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and accommodation on the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 294-315.