A spectacular non sequitur: The supreme court's contemporary fourth amendment exclusionary rule jurisprudence

American Criminal Law Review

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-57

  Gray, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876493158     PISSN: 01640364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (269)

1. H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility 19 (1968).
2. Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419,2426 (2011)
3. A. Allen, The Judicial Quest for Penal Justice: The Warren Court and the Criminal Cases, 1975 U. III. L.F. 518,536 (1975);
4. Robert M. Bloom & David H. Fentin, "A More Majestic Conception": The Importance of Judicial Integrity in Preserving the Exclusionary Rule, 13 U. Pa. J. const. L. 47 (2010).
5. David Gray, Meagan Cooper & David McAloon, The Supreme Court's Contemporary Silver Platter Doctrine, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 7 (2012).
6. Cf. Yale Kamisar, Does (Did) (Should) the Exclusionary Rule Rest on a "Principled Basis" Rather than an "Empirical Proposition"?, 16 Creighton L. Rev. 565, 565 n.l (1983)
7. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135,141 (2009).
8. Guido Calabresi, The Exclusionary Rule, 26 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 111 (2003).
9. Christopher Slobogin, Why Liberals Should Chuck the Exclusionary Rule, 1999 U. III. L. Rev. 363 (1999).
10. See Akhil Reed Amar, Fourth Amendment First Principles, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 757, 791-92 (1994).
11. Carol S. Steiker, Second Thoughts About First Principles, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 820 (1994).
12. Randy E. Barnett, Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice, 32 Emory L.J. 937 (1983).
13. Richard A. Posner, Rethinking the Fourth Amendment, 1981 Sup. Ct. Rev. 49 (1981).
14. For a trenchant argument against civil enforcement, see Caleb Foote, Tort Remedies for Police Violations of Individual Rights, 39 Minn. L. Rev. 493 (1955).
15. Sharon L. Davies, The Penalty of Exclusion-A Price or Sanction?, 73 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1275, 1294, 1310-15 (2000).
16. Jennifer E. Laurin, Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011).
17. Robert M. Bloom & Erin Dewey, When Rights Become Empty Promises: Promoting an Exclusionary Rule that Vindicates Personal Rights, 46 Irish Jurist 38,41-42 (2011)
18. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704 (Nov. 22,2010), cert, granted, 131 S. Ct. 3057 (2011)
19. Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (2012).
20. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, at ch. 13, § 3 (1789).
21. David Gray, Punishment as Suffering, 63 Vand. L. Rev. 1617,1656-72 (2010).
22. John Brunsteen, Christopher Buccafusco & Jonathan Masur, Happiness and Punishment, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1037, 1037 (2009);
23. Adam J. Kolber, The Subjective Experience of Punishment, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 182,212-13 (2009);
24. Dan Markel & Chad Flanders, Bentham on Stilts: The Bare Relevance of Subjectivity to Retributive Justice, 98 Calif. L. Rev. 907 (2010);
25. Dan Markel, Chad Flanders & David Gray, Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right, 99 Calif. L. Rev. 605 (2011 ).
26. Gary S. Becker, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, 76 J. Pol. Econ. 169 (1968)
27. Cf. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 9(1971).
28. See Dan Markel, Executing Retributivism: Panetti and the Future of the Eighth Amendment, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1163, 1170-72 (2009)
29. analyzing possible justifications of the exclusionary rule as discussed in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399,407-10,420-22 (1986).
30. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135,153-56 (2009)
31. Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U. L. Rev. 453, 454-58, 488 (1997)
32. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., The Exclusionary Rule: An Essential Ingredient of the Fourth Amendment, 1983 Sup. Ct. Rev. 283,292 (1983)
33. John Brunsteen, Retribution 's Role, 84 Ind. L.J. 1129 (2009)
34. Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2426 (2011).
35. David McAloon, Davis v. United States: Good Faith, Retroactivity, and the Loss of Principle, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1258 (2012).
36. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135,141-42 (2009)
37. United States v. Dahlman, 13 F.3d 1391,1397-98 (10th Cir. 1993)
38. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232-36 (2009)
39. People v. Defore, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (N.Y. 1926)
40. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 946 (1984)
41. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135,144 (2009).
42. William J. Mertens & Silas Wasserstrom, The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Deregulating the Police and Derailing the Law, 70 Geo. L. J. 365,394-95,399-401 ( 1981 );
43. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
44. Orin S. Kerr, Good Faith, New Law, and the Scope of the Exclusionary Rule, 99 Geo. L.J. 1077, 1084-85 (2011)
45. Roger J. Traynor, Mapp v. Ohio at Large in the Fifty States, 1962 Duke L.J. 319, 322-23 (1962)
46. New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 23 (1990)
47. Calif. L. Rev. 929,953 (1965).
48. Herring, 555 U.S. at 143-44.
49. Frank Easterbrook in his canonical article Ways of Criticizing the Court, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 802 (1982).
50. Maxwell L. Stearns, Constttutional Process: A Social Choice Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Making 28, 197-98 (2000).
51. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25,29 (1949)
52. William C. Heffernan, The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Remedy, 88 Geo. L.J. 799, 808 (2000)
53. Potter Stewart, The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and Beyond: The Origins, Development and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and-Seizure Cases, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1365, 1372-77 (1983)
54. Roger Roots recently has disputed this common wisdom in The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, 45 Gönz. L. Rev. 1 (2010).
55. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920)
56. United States v. La Jeune Eugenie, 26 F. Cas. 832,843-14 (CCD. Mass. 1822).
57. Commonwealth v. Dana, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 329, 337 (1841)
58. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385,392 (1920)
59. Donald Dripps, Living with Leon, 95 Yale L.J. 906, 938 (1986)
60. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147 (1803)
61. Weeks, 232 U.S. at 393
62. Jerry E. Norton, The Exclusionary Rule Reconsidered: Restoring the Status Quo Ante, 33 Wake Forest L. Rev. 261,262 (1998)
63. Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961);
64. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957)
65. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948);
66. Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41 (1933);
67. Grau v. United States, 287 U.S. 124 (1932);
68. Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1 (1932);
69. United States v. Berkeness, 275 U.S. 149 (1927);
70. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927);
71. Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921).
72. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 (1914).
73. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206,211-12 (1960)
74. Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128,137 (1954)
75. Wolf, 338 U.S at 27-28, 33;
76. United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 798 (1949)
77. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).
78. Wolf, 338 U.S. at 30-31.
79. People v. Cahan, 282 P.2d 905 (Cal. 1955).
80. Wolf, 338 U.S. at 47-48
81. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)
82. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963);
83. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965);
84. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965);
85. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966);
86. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967);
87. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967);
88. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967);
89. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968);
90. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);
91. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969);
92. Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969);
93. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969);
94. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).
95. Am. U. L. Rev. 1 (1964).
96. California v. Minjares, 443 U.S. 901,926-28 (1979)
97. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974).
98. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 355-57
99. Daliin H. Oaks, Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure, 37 U. Chi. L. Rev. 665,755 (1970).
100. Bradley Canon later concluded "[t]here is no way to demonstrate that the rule works or that it does not work." Bradley C. Canon, Ideology and Reality in the Debate over the Exclusionary Rule: A Conservative Argument for its Retention, 23 S. Tex. L.J. 559, 572 (1982).
101. Raymond A. Atkins & Paul H. Rubin, Effects of Criminal Procedure on Crime Rates: Mapping Out the Consequences of the Exclusionary Rule, 46 J.L. & Econ. 157,159,163 (2003).
102. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636-37 (1965)
103. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165,174-75 (1969)
104. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 350-51.
105. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 365-66
106. Donald L. Horowitz, The Courts and Social Policy 220,239 (1977).
107. Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419,2436 (2011)
108. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 152-53 (2009)
109. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 604 (2006)
110. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 928-29 (1984)
111. United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268,285 (1978)
112. Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 N.E.2d 845,851 (Mass. 2010)
113. State v. Garcia, 217 P.3d 1032, 1039 (N.M. 2009)
114. People v. Brown, 755 N.W.2d 664, 675-66 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008)
115. Hensley v. Commonwealth, 248 S.W.3d 572,578-79 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007)
116. State v. Prior, 617 N.W.2d 260,268 (Iowa 2000)
117. State v. Johnson, 573 A.2d 909,915 (N.J. 1990)
118. Telford Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 59-64 (1969);
119. Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20,34 (1925);
120. Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298,303-04 (1921);
121. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616,621,634-35 (1886).
122. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 400-01 (1976);
123. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761, 764(1966).
124. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643,661-62 (1961)
125. Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2423 (2011);
126. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135,140-42 (2009);
127. Leon, 468 U.S. at 906; United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 448-49 (1976);
128. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974);
129. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451,453 (1948);
130. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383,392-94 (1914);
131. Brooks Holland, The Exclusionary Rule as Punishment, 36 Rutgers L. Rec. 38,42-47 (2009);
132. United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 556-57 (1975)
133. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346,361-62 (1997)
134. Dan Markel, Retributive Damages: A Theory of Punitive Damages as Intermediate Sanction, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 239,250 (2009).
135. Myron W. Orfield. Jr., The Exclusionary Rule and Deterrence: An Empirical Study of Chicago Narcotics Officers, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1016 (1987);
136. Davis, 131 S. Ct. at 2427;
137. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586,591 (2006).
138. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654-55 (1961);
139. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 391-92 (1920);
140. Walter E. Dellinger, Of Rights and Remedies: The Constitution as a Sword, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1532 (1972);
141. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals 141 Mary Gregor trans., Cambridge Univ. Press 1991 1797;
142. Georg Wilhelm F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, reprinted in 46 Great Books of the Western World §§ 82,90-103
143. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920);
144. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 151-52 (2009)
145. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 937-38 (1984)
146. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643,655 (1961);
147. Goldstein v. United States, 316 U.S. 114,120 (1942)
148. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438,470 (1928)
149. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393 (1914);
150. Thorn Brooks, Is Hegel a Retributivist?, 49/50 Bull, of the Hegel Soc'y of Great Britain 113 (2004);
151. Thorn Brooks, Hegel and the Unified Theory of Punishment, in Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 103-23 (Thorn Brooks ed., 2012).
152. Cf. Donald Dripps, Living with Leon, 95 Yale L.J. 906 (1986).
153. Joel Feinberg, Doing & Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility 118(1970).
154. Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, in Punishment: A Philosophy & Public Affairs Reader 112 (A. John Simmons et al. eds., 1995);
155. Jean Hampton, Correcting Harms Versus Righting Wrongs: The Goal of Retribution, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 1659 (1992).
156. Dan Markel, Retributive Justice and the Demands of Democratic Citizenship, 1 Va. J. Crim. L. 1 (2012);
157. Jason M. Solomon, Equal Accountability Through Tort Law, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1765 (2009)
158. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431,447 (1984)
159. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 151-52 (2008)
160. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 943-44 (1984)
161. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388,414 (1971)
162. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13 (1968);
163. Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624,630 (1946)
164. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478-79 (1927)
165. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 391-92 (1920);
166. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393-94 (1914)
167. Herbert Morris, Persons and Punishment, in On Guilt and Innocence: Essays in Legal Philosophy and Moral Psychology, 31,34-35 (1976).
168. Tom Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (1990).
169. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465,485 (1976).
170. Greg M. Shaw et al., The Polls-Trends: Crime, The Police, and Civil Liberties, 62 Pub. Op. Q. 405 (1998);
171. Mark Warr, The Polls-Poll Trends: Public Opinion on Crime and Punishment, 59 Pub. Op. Q. 296 (1995).
172. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388,416 (1971)
173. Dan Markel, Jennifer M. Collins & Ethan J. Leib, Privilege or Punish: Criminal Justice and the Challenge of Family Ties, at xiv (2009);
174. Rebecca L. Naser & Christy A. Visher, Family Members'Experiences with Incarceration and Reentry, 7 West. Crim. Rev. 20,21 (2006).
175. John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2184 (John T. McNaughton ed., Aspen Publishers 1967) (1904).
176. Bryan D. Lammon, Note, The Practical Mandates of the Fourth Amendment: A Behavioral Argument for the Exclusionary Rule and Warrant Preference, 85 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1101,1136 (2007).
177. United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 800 (1949)
178. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897,901 (1984).
179. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465,492 (1976);
180. New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 31-32 (1990)
181. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
182. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
183. People v. Cahan, 282 P.2d 905 (Cal. 1955).
184. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 219-21 (1960).
185. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 152-53 (2009)
186. Ronald Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs 294 (2011 ).
187. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (No. 07-513)
188. See New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14,31-32 (1990)
189. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897,969-72. (1984).
190. United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830,842 (5th Cir. 1980)
191. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 954-56 (1984)
192. Committee on Federal Legislation of the Bar of New York City, Proposed Changes to the Exclusionary Rule, 50 Rec. Assoc. Bar of N. Y. City 385 (1985). 239.
193. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,147 (1803).
194. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945,949 (2012).
195. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347,360 (1967)
196. Anthony G. Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 Minn. L. Rev. 349,368 (1974).
197. Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011);
198. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009);
199. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995);
200. Illinois v. Knill, 480 U.S. 340 (1987);
201. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984).
202. David Gray, An Excuse-Centered Approach to Transitional Justice, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2621,2652-57 (2006).
203. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 206-07 (1991)
204. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274-76 (1952)
205. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)
206. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
207. United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (1987)
208. United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475 (1984)
209. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146,151 (2004);
210. People v. Marrero, 507 N.E.2d 1068,1069 (N.Y. 1987).
211. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, at i, Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704 (Nov. 22, 2010), cert, granted, 131 S. Ct. 3057 (2011)
212. Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (2012).
213. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586,592-94 (2006).
214. United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268,273-80 (1978).
215. Stephen A. Saltzburg & Daniel J. Capra, American Criminal Procedure 557 (9th ed. 2010).
216. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 597-600 (1974);
217. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88, 491 (1963);
218. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 (1939);
219. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385,392 (1920).
220. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338,341 (1939);
221. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385,392 (1920).
222. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948)
223. United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980)
224. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
225. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)
226. New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 31-32 (1990)
227. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
228. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128,133-34 (1990)
229. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987).
230. United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980).
231. United States v. Oscar-Torres, 507 F.3d 224, 231 (4th Cir. 2007)
232. United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d 1104, 1116 (10th Cir. 2006)
233. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1051 (1984)
234. United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268,279-80 (1978);
235. Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 1523 (1984).
236. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993)
237. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10,14 (1948).
238. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 609-10 (2006)
239. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135,141-42 (2009)
240. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383 (2007)
241. John Kaplan, The Limits of the Exclusionary Rule, 26 Stan. L. Rev. 1027, 1046 (1974)
242. United States v. Williams, 594 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1979)
243. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 608-10 (1975)
244. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995)
245. United States v. Jones, 214 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2000);
246. Albert W. Alschuler, Studying the Exclusionary Rule: An Empirical Classic, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1365 (2008);
247. Jessica M. Weitzman, Note, They Won't Come Knocking No More: Hudson v. Michigan and the Demise of the Knock-and-Announce Rule, 73 Brook. L. Rev. 1209 (2008).
248. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135,141-42 (2009)
249. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385,392 (1920).
250. Since Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978)
251. Daniel J. Solove, Fourth Amendment Pragmatism, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 1511 (2010).
252. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998);
253. United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993);
254. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990);
255. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980);
256. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (1980);
257. United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980);
258. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978);
259. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969);
260. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960).
261. Goldstein v. United States, 316 U.S. 114,127 n.4 (1942)
262. People v. Cahan, 282 P.2d 905,911 (Cal. 1955)
263. People v. Martin, 290 P.2d 855, 857 (Cal. 1955)
264. People v. Johnson, 209 Cal. Rptr. 78,80 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
265. United States v. Payner, 434 F. Supp. 113,130-33 (N.D. Ohio 1977)
266. Kevin R. Johnson, How Racial Profiling in America Became the Law of the Land: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce and Whren v. United States and the Need for Truly Rebellious Lawyering, 98 Geo. L.J. 1005, 1035, 1047 (2010)
267. Bernard E. Harcourt, Rethinking Racial Profiling: A Critique of the Economics, Civil Liberties, and Constitutional Literature, and of Criminal Profiling More Generally, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1275 (2004)
268. Racial Profiling Data Collection Center, www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu (last visited Nov. 26,2012).
269. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)