IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v78y1984i04p891-900_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981

Author

Listed:
  • Segal, Jeffrey A.

Abstract

The overwhelming concensus of Fourth Amendment scholars is that the Supreme Court's sea and seizure cases are a mess. This article proposes that the confusion arises from the manner in which the cases were studied, not from the decisions themselves. A legal model with variables that me the prior justification of the search, the nature of the intrusion, and a few mitigating circumstance used to explain the Court's decisions on the reasonableness of a given search or seizure. The parameters are estimated through probit.The results show that the search and seizure cases are much more ordered than had commonly been believed. Virtually all of the estimates are as expected. Additionally, the Court is shown to act favorably toward the federal government than toward the states. Preliminary analysis suggests the model has predictive as well as explanatory value.

Suggested Citation

  • Segal, Jeffrey A., 1984. "Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(4), pages 891-900, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:04:p:891-900_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400256402/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niblett, Anthony, 2013. "Tracking inconsistent judicial behavior," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 9-20.
    2. JBrandon Duck-Mayr, 2022. "Explaining legal inconsistency," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 107-126, January.
    3. Anthony Niblett & Richard A. Posner & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "The Evolution of a Legal Rule," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 325-358.
    4. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    5. Charles M. Cameron & Lewis A. Kornhauser, 2017. "Rational choice attitudinalism?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 535-554, June.
    6. Jonathan P. Kastellec, 2010. "The Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions and Legal Rules with Classification Trees," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 202-230, June.
    7. Qiang Zhao & Rundong Guo & Xiaowei Feng & Weifeng Hu & Siwen Zhao & Zihan Wang & Yujun Li & Yewen Cao, 2022. "Research on a Decision Prediction Method Based on Causal Inference and a Multi-Expert FTOPJUDGE Mechanism," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-22, June.
    8. David Gliksberg, 2014. "Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 378-407, June.
    9. Jonathan P. Kastellec & Jeffrey R. Lax, 2008. "Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 407-446, September.
    10. Jeff Yates & Damon M. Cann & Brent D. Boyea, 2013. "Judicial Ideology and the Selection of Disputes for U.S. Supreme Court Adjudication," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 847-865, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:04:p:891-900_25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.