<<  <  >  >>

Page 35

the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut from the

Year 1785 to May 1788 (Delmar, N.Y.: Scholars' Facsimiles

and Reprints, 1986), p. 213.

26. Blackstone, vol. 4, p. 288.

27. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114-16 (1975).

28. "[H]istory undeniably supports the proposition that the

framers opposed leaving the power to search and seize

solely in executive hands."  Joseph D. Grano, "Rethinking

the Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement," American

Criminal Law Review 19 (1982): 620.  It is noteworthy that

the earliest federal laws on the subject of searches

respected the judicial branch's warrant-issuing preroga-

tive.  See, for example, Act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29,

43 (application for warrant on oath or affirmation before

justice of the peace); and Act of March 3, 1791, 1 Stat.

199, 207 (oath or affirmation, establishing grounds for

reasonable cause for suspicion, before U.S. judge or jus-

tice of the peace).

29. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 706 (1988) (Scalia,

J., dissenting).

30. See Young at 815-25 (Scalia, J., dissenting); and

Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 142 (1954) (Black, J.,

dissenting).  See also Inmates of Attica Correctional

Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375, 379-80 (1975);

United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (1965); and Smith

v. Gallagher, 185 A.2d 135, 149-54 (1962).

31. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 544 (1897).

32. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 60

(1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original).

33. See, for example, the argument of the attorney general

of California in Respondent's Brief, Chimel v. California,

395 U.S. 752 (1969), pp. 38-41.

Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has championed a

very similar view of the Constitution.  Amar maintains

that the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is

reasonableness, not warrants.  That is, the police do not

need search warrants or even probable cause to search the

homes of citizens.  According to Amar, police excesses can

be adequately checked by civil damage lawsuits where civil

juries will hold government officials "liable for unreason-

able intrusions against person, property, and privacy."