This Article attempts to answer such questions by examining the evolution of search-and-seizure law in America. Although the structural nature of decision making embodied in the Bill of Rights has far-ranging implications for that entire document, I limit my consideration to the unique aspects of the Fourth Amendment. In doing so I have followed the suggestion that constitutional interpretation considers a threefold question: "Does the Constitution mean what it was meant to mean, or what it has come to mean, or what it ought to mean?" Part I examines the historical involvement of juries in search-and-seizure cases; Part II considers the current state of the judiciary' s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; and Part III concludes with a proposed structure for Fourth Amendment decision making that returns the jury to its former prominence.

Document Type


Publication Date