Psychology and the Fourth Amendment

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

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 85.59 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

The Detective Mindset: Forensic Approaches to Detecting Behaviour

Surveillance and Criminal Investigation: Blurring of Thresholds and Boundaries in the Criminal Justice System?

False Confessions: From Colonial Salem, Through Central Park, and into the Twenty-First Century

References

• Amar, A. R. (1994). Fourth Amendment first principles. Harvard Law Review, 107(4), 757–819. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35. ArticleGoogle 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639ArticlePubMedGoogle 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. ArticleGoogle 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. ArticleGoogle 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/a0010932ArticlePubMedGoogle 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/10.1177/0146167283093017ArticleGoogle 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. ArticleGoogle 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.xArticleGoogle 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/10.1177/0146167299025002007ArticleGoogle 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. ArticleGoogle 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/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288ArticleGoogle 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/BF00986817ArticleGoogle 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/a000060ArticleGoogle 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.xArticlePubMedGoogle 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.ArticleGoogle 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.xArticleGoogle 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.xArticleGoogle 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/BF01044614ArticleGoogle 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/BF01061715ArticleGoogle 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/s10979-009-9188-6ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.xArticlePubMedGoogle 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/a000064ArticleGoogle 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.xArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ‘field at a given time.’. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062738ArticleGoogle 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.2003.10.008ArticleGoogle 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.2001.9959612ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Loewy, A. (1983). The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent. Michigan Law Review, 81(5), 1229–1272. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288524ArticleGoogle 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. ArticleGoogle 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/a0023741ArticleGoogle 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/10.1177/1754073908100439ArticleGoogle 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:1024879824307ArticlePubMedGoogle 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. PubMedGoogle 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.2008.04.011ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle 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)00049-9ArticleGoogle 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. ArticleGoogle 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/10.2307/1372714ArticleGoogle 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.2007.06.011ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009). Contextualizing person perception: Distributed social cognition. Psychological Review, 116, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015072ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.xArticleGoogle 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/p5796ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle 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/a000061ArticleGoogle 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/h0032706ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stuntz, W. J. (1991). Warrants and Fourth Amendment remedies. Virginia Law Review, 77(5), 881–943. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Stuntz, W. J. (1995). The problems with privacy’s problem: Reply. Michigan Law Review, 93(5), 1102–1104. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sundby, S. E. (1994). “Everyman”’s Fourth Amendment: Privacy or mutual trust between government and citizen? Columbia Law Review, 94(6), 1751–1812. ArticleGoogle 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.xArticleGoogle Scholar
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle 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/a0014475ArticlePubMedGoogle 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/10.1177/0146167286124017ArticleGoogle 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.1162548ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322ArticlePubMedGoogle 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

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

1. Eve M. Brank