English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Professor Duke and I offer competing accounts of the warrant process. I believe that police apply for search warrants because they seek admissible evidence, that warrants are more costly than investigative alternatives, and that therefore the police rarely seek warrants without probable cause. He believes that the police obtain warrants without anything approaching probable cause,' that warrant searches are unreliable," and that judicial hostility and defense neglect have nullified the exclusionary rule. 5 Which account is more consistent with the evidence? I argue that the low suppression rate and the success rate of warrant searches indicates reliability. Professor Duke responds that the low suppression rate results from systemic hostility to the Fourth Amendment, 6 and that the seizure statistics are inflated by the police and inconsistent with the conviction data.7 The low suppression rate holds, however, independently of the frequency of suppression motions. 8 It holds also in liberal jurisdictions, such as the D.C. Circuit 9 and pre-proposition 8 Califor-

More on Search Warrants, Good Faith, and Probable Cause