American Politics Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kritzer, H. M.
Right arrow Articles by Richards, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Politics Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 33-55 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04264987
© 2005 SAGE Publications

The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court’s Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence

Herbert M. Kritzer

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Mark J. Richards

Grand Valley State University

In this research note/replication, we apply the construct of jurisprudential regimes as described in our recent article to the jurisprudential area of search and seizure. Given the centrality of this area of Supreme Court decision making in the core studies supporting the attitudinal model, replicating our analysis of the jurisprudential regime construct in this area provides an important test of the concept. Our results produce strong support for the proposition that post-Mapp decision making can be separated into distinct regimes, with a set of important cases decided in 1983-1984 demarcating the regimes. The predictors of decisions in the two periods are consistent with the types of changes one would expect the regime shift to produce. Our findings challenge the attitudinalists’proposition that there is at best negligible statistical evidence that law influences Supreme Court decision making.

Key Words: judicial behavior • search and seizure • U.S. Supreme Court • jurisprudential regime


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
K. M. Scott
Judicial Behavior and the Rehnquist Court's Federalism Revolution
American Politics Research, January 1, 2008; 36(1): 85 - 107.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
S. C. Benesh and H. J. Spaeth
The Constraint of Law: A Study of Supreme Court Dissensus
American Politics Research, September 1, 2007; 35(5): 755 - 768.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 PubliusHome page
P. M. Collins Jr
Towards an Integrated Model of the U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Decision Making
Publius, June 30, 2007; (2007) pjm019v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]