Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychology and the Fourth Amendment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Advances in Psychology and Law

Part of the book series: Advances in Psychology and Law ((APL,volume 3))

Abstract

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that people are to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It further requires that warrants to perform such searches and seizures are based on probable cause with specific descriptions of what will be searched or seized. Supreme Court case law has contextualized this standard and applied a number of exceptions. As is often the case in the law, those standards and exceptions have psychological foundations and implications. The current chapter first examines the historical background of the Fourth Amendment. That history is replete with examples of the judiciary making psychological assumptions about people’s behavior. Next, we examine modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence focusing on when a search or seizure triggers Fourth Amendment protections. In particular, we address the use of surveillance and technology (including trained canines) that seem to push the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment’s original intent. Finally, we address the issue of consenting to a search request because a search will not violate the Fourth Amendment if there is a valid consent. We detail empirical research addressing the psychological mechanisms underlying the validity and voluntariness of such consents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amar, A. R. (1994). Fourth Amendment first principles. Harvard Law Review, 107(4), 757–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bambauer, J. Y. (2012). How the war on drugs distorts privacy law. Stanford Law Review Online, 64, 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bambauer, J. Y. (2013). Defending the dog. Oregon Law Review, 91, 1203–1211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, E. L. (1960). Personal rights, property rights, and the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court Review, 1960, 46–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bector, S. (2009). Your laptop, please: The search and seizure of electronic devices at the United States border. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24, 695–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benforado, A. (2010). The body of the mind: Embodied cognition, law, and justice. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 54, 1185–1217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, J. A., Adya, M., & Mogle, J. (2009). The multiple dimensions of privacy: Testing lay “expectations of privacy.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 11, 331-373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, C. M. (1985). Two models of the Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review Association, 83(6), 1468–1501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brank, E.M., Groscup, J.L., Haby, J.A., & Hoetger, L.A. (2016, March). I’m cramped and hot: Subtle environmental effects on consents to search. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brank, E.M., Groscup, J.L., Hoetger, L.A., Wiley, L.E., & Haby, J.A. (2015, March). Even If I know I Shouldn’t, I’m Still Going to Consent to a Search: The Impact of Knowledge of Rights and Warnings about Rights on Actual Consent to Search Decisions. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Diego, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brendlin v. California. , 551 U.S. 249 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M., Oakman, J. A., & Bullard, N. (1983). Desire for control and the perception of crowding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 475–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167283093017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbado, D. W. (2002). (E)racing the Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 100(5), 946–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Kelly, J. R. (1988). Cognitions, attitudes and decision-making in search and seizure cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00008.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanenson, S. L. (2004). Get the facts, Jack! Empirical research and the changing constitutional landscape of consent searches. Tennessee Law Review, 71, 399–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Couillard, D. A. (2011). Defogging the cloud: Applying the Fourth Amendment to evolving privacy expectations in cloud computing. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 101–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, T. Y. (1999). Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 98, 547-750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, T. Y. (2008). Correcting search-and-seizure history: Now-forgotten common-law warrantless arrest standards and the original meaning of due process of law. Mississippi Law Journal, 77, 1–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. B. (1973). Fact style adjudication and the Fourth Amendment: The limits of lawyering. Indiana Law Journal, 48(3), 329–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gochman, I. R., & Keating, J. P. (1980). Misattributions to crowding: Blaming crowding for nondensity-caused events. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 4, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P. E., & Scarantino, A. (2009). Emotions in the wild: The situated perspective on emotion. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 437–453). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groscup, J.L., Brank, E. M., Roizin, E., Gold, R., & Sachs, L. (2015, March) Warning me that I can say no will only make me feel better about saying yes: The effects of police warnings and understanding of rights in a consent search. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groscup, J. L., Marshall, E., & Brank, E. M. (2016, March). Hey officer, don’t fence me in! The impact of exit-blocking, physical distance, and relative physical position on perceptions of consent searches. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groscup, J., Rivera, A., Hoetger, L., & Brank, E. (2014, March). Give me a home where the drug sniffing dog doesn’t roam: Privacy expectations for canine searches. Paper presented at the American Psychology & Law Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, March, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M., Wakslak, C., Fujita, K., & Rohrbach, J. (2011). Construal level theory and spatial distance: Implications for mental representation, judgment, and behavior. Social Psychology, 42, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkel, D., & Mahr, J. (2011, January 6). Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong. The Chicago Tribune.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ijzerman, H., & Semin, G. (2009). The thermometer of social relations: Mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20, 1214–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02434.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S.Ct. 834 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagehiro, D. K. (1988). Perceived voluntariness of consent to warrantless police searches. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.1988.tb00003.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Psycholegal research on the Fourth Amendment. Psychological Science, 1, 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00196.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagehiro, D. K., & Taylor, R. B. (1991). Third-party consent searches: Legal vs. social perceptions of common authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1274–1287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01206.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagehiro, D. K., Taylor, R. B., & Harland, A. T. (1991). Reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party consent searches. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagehiro, D. K., Taylor, R. B., Laufer, W. S., & Harland, A. T. (1991). Hindsight bias and third-party consentors to warrantless police searches. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S., Drizen, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo, R., & Redlich, A. (2009). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S., & Gudjonsson, G. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katz v. United States. 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, O. S. (2007). Four models of Fourth Amendment protection. Stanford Law Review, 60, 503–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, O. S. (2010). Applying the Fourth Amendment to the internet: A general approach. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1005–1038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, O. S. (2012). The mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 111, 311–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, D. K. (2009). Free to leave? An empirical look at the Fourth Amendment’s seizure standard. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 51–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, W., Israel, J., King, N. J., & Kerr, O. S. (2009). Hornbook on criminal procedure (5th ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakens, D., Semin, G., & Foroni, F. (2011). Why your highness needs the people: Comparing the absolute and relative representation of power in vertical space. Social Psychology, 42, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Diamond, S. S., Schmidt, H. C., & Elek, J. K. (2007). Evaluating videotaped confessions: Expertise provides no defense against the camera-perspective effect. Psychological Science, 18, 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01879.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ‘field at a given time.’. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, I. D. (2000). Voluntary consent or obedience to authority: An inquiry into the ‘consensual’ police-citizen encounter. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. AAT 9947571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, I. D. (2001). Miranda in Ohio: The effect of Robinette on the “voluntary” waiver of Fourth Amendment Rights. Howard Law Journal, 44, 349–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, I. D. (2004a). The impact of verbal warning on police consent search practices. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2003.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, I. D. (2004b). The bus-sweep controversy: Agency, authority, and the unresolved issue of third-party consent. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 81, 145–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, I. D., & Smith, A. (2001). Testing the effectiveness of consent searches as a law enforcement tool. The Justice Professional, 14, 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2001.9959612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewy, A. (1983). The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent. Michigan Law Review, 81(5), 1229–1272. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLin, T. (1998). Race and the Fourth Amendment. Vanderbilt Law Review, 51, 333–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J. (2002). No need to shout: Bus sweeps and the psychology of coercion. Supreme Court Review, 153–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J., & Trout, J. D. (2012)). The language of consent in police encounters. In P. Tiersma & L. Solan (Eds.). Oxford Handbook on Linguistics and the Law. (326-339). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Najdowski, C. J. (2011). Stereotype threat in criminal interrogations: Why innocent black suspects are at risk for confessing falsely. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 562–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ping, R. M., Dhillon, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Reach for what you like: The body’s role in shaping preferences. Emotion Review, 1(2), 140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908100439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, A., & Groscup, J. (2014, March). Good dog! How the background of law enforcement dogs affects perceptions of canine searches. Poster presented at the American Psychology & Law Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, March, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbennolt, J. K., & Sobus, M. S. (1997). An integration of hindsight bias and counterfactual thinking: Decision-making and drug courier profiles. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024879824307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3–10). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481–486.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr, K. C., & Madon, S. (2012). You have the right to understand: The deleterious effect of stress on suspects’ ability to comprehend Miranda. Forthcoming in Law and Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093972

  • Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Social support and the perception of geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1246–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (2002). Interfaces of social psychology with situated and embodied cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00049-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920)

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R. (2005). Not “voluntary” but still reasonable: A new paradigm for understanding the consent searches doctrine. Indiana Law Journal, 80, 773–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklansky, D. A. (2000). The Fourth Amendment and common law. Columbia Law Review, 100(7), 1739–1814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (1991). The world without a Fourth Amendment. University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 39, 1–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C., & Schumacher, J. E. (1993). Reasonable expectations of privacy and autonomy in Fourth Amendment cases: An empirical look at “understanding recognized and permitted by society”. Duke Law Journal, 42, 727–775. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (2013). Making the most of United States v. Jones in a surveillance society: A statutory implementation of mosaic theory. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 8, 1-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R. (2008). Social relationships and groups: New insights on embodied and distributed cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009). Contextualizing person perception: Distributed social cognition. Psychological Review, 116, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2007). Situated social cognition. Current directions in psychological science, 16(3), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00490.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, M., & Richardson, D. (2009). Language processing embodied and embedded. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 382–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Johnson, 346 A. 2d 66 (N.J. 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Ferrier, 960 P. 2d. 927 (Wash. 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., Clore, G., & Parekh, N. (2008). Skating down a steeper slope: Fear influences the perception of geographical slant. Perception, 37, 321–323. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5796

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Steidle, A., Werth, L., & Hanke, E.-V. (2011). You can’t see much in the dark: Darkness affects construal level and psychological distance. Social Psychology, 42, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79, 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stuntz, W. J. (1991). Warrants and Fourth Amendment remedies. Virginia Law Review, 77(5), 881–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuntz, W. J. (1995). The problems with privacy’s problem: Reply. Michigan Law Review, 93(5), 1102–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundby, S. E. (1994). “Everyman”’s Fourth Amendment: Privacy or mutual trust between government and citizen? Columbia Law Review, 94(6), 1751–1812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, B. A. (2006). Whether consent to search was given voluntarily: A statistical analysis of factors that predict the suppression ruling of the federal district courts. New York University Law Review, 81, 2192–2225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taslitz, A. E. (2006). Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A history of search and seizure, 1789-1868. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. C. (1999). Stopping the usual suspects: Race and the Fourth Amendment. New York University Law Review, 74, 956–1013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiersma, P. M., & Solan, L. M. (2004). Cops and robbers: Selective literalism in American criminal law. Law and Society Review, 38, 229–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.03802008.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (2009). Spatial cognition: Embodied and situated. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 201–216). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M. (2009). Change over time in obedience: The jury’s still out, but it might be decreasing. American Psychologist, 64, 28–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Barrows 481 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Jones, Transcript of oral argument at 44. 132S.Ct.945 (2012) (No. 10-1295)

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950)

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Wurie, 728 F.3d I (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzel, R. (2014). Implications for fourth amendment protection in the cloud. Yale L. J. F., 124, 73-79. Retrieved from http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/rileys-implications-in-the- cloud

  • Webb, B., Worchel, S., Riechers, L., & Wayne, W. (1986). The influence of categorization on perceptions of crowding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167286124017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 332, 606–607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1162548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K, Brank, E., Groscup, J., & Marshall, E. (2015, March). I don’t know much, but I know I don’t trust you: Knowledge of 4th amendment rights and reactions to police requests to search. Paper presented at the American Psychology & Law Association Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, P. (2009). Katz and the origins of the “reasonable expectations of privacy” test. McGeorge Law Review, 40, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, L. E., Hazen, K. A., Hoeter, L. A., Haby, J. A., & Brank, E. M. (2018, preprint). Four decades of psychology and law: An Empirical Review. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2685-y

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Eve M. Brank

  2. Department of Psychology, Scripps College, Claremont, CA, USA

    Jennifer L. Groscup

Authors
  1. Eve M. Brank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer L. Groscup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eve M. Brank .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA

    Monica K. Miller

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brank, E.M., Groscup, J.L. (2018). Psychology and the Fourth Amendment. In: Miller, M., Bornstein, B. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law. Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation