Constitutional Law - A Man's Home Is Not Necessarily His Castle - The Supreme Court Adopts the Impoundment Exception to the Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement

Abstract

INTRODUCTION|On July 5, 1984, the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Segura v. United States. This decision affects two major criminal procedure doctrines-the exclusionary rule and the fourth amendment warrant requirement. The Court declined to apply the exclusionary rule, thus opening the door for another exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement. This Note contends that the Segura decision unnecessarily narrowed the scope of the exclusionary rule and was a poor vehicle by which to adopt an impoundment exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement. After a brief overview of Segura's facts and holding, this Note discusses the origins of and justifications for the exclusionary rule and examines the rule's applications and exceptions. Next, this Note explores the differing interests affected by searches as opposed to seizures and demonstrates that in some cases, the Court has preferred a warrantless seizure over a warrantless search. However, affording less fourth amendment protection against warrantless seizures should not extend to seizures of a home. Recognizing that while many lower court decisions have adopted"impoundment" or seizure of a home from within as a preferred alternative to a warrantless search, the facts of Segura do not support adoption of this alternative. This Note further criticizes the Court's use of the independent source doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule. By applying this exception on the facts of Segura, the Supreme Court has undermined a primary justification for the exclusionary rule: deterrence. Finally, this Note discusses possible implications of the Segura decision...