-1

I find the US Supreme Court's 4th Amendment Jurisprudence frustrating. If your car/house/person is unreasonably searched and no incriminating evidence found, you often have no remedy (see the judge invented rule of qualified immunity). On the other hand, if incriminating evidence IS found, you get a massive windfall (see the judge invented exclusionary rule).

Is this the natural and inevitable consequence of text and original meaning of the 4th Amendment, or could the Supreme Court gone down a different road?

Solanacea
  • 99
  • 1

2 Answers2

2

It is not the case that the doctrine of qualified immunity precludes a remedy for an unreasonable search that turns up no evidence. See e.g. Kim Vasquez v. Chris G. Maloney, et al., 20-1070 (2d Cir. March 4, 2021):

we hold that it was clearly established law in January 2015 that an officer’s unconfirmed hunch that an arrest warrant might possibly exist, coupled with nothing more than the officer’s recognition of a suspect from prior arrests, does not constitute reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop or frisk. Accordingly, at this stage and on the limited factual record before us, the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for their detention and frisk of Vasquez.

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381
1

Yes. The Supreme Court could have rejected the Exclusionary Rule, or they could have rejected qualified immunity, or both.

As you've noted, both rules are creations of the courts, so there was nothing binding the courts to this particular selection of remedies.

bdb484
  • 66,944
  • 4
  • 146
  • 214