Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2003
Abstract
This Article will reflect on (1) how the Whren v. United States failure to acknowledge what counts as a pretext accounts for the residual confusion as to whether or not Whren really has killed off the pretext argument in constitutional criminal procedure, and (2) the extent to which the Court in Sullivan compounded that failure, which I hope to lightly correct here by distinguishing motives from intentions and then by elaborating the role that each plays, or at least should play, in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Recommended Citation
Daniel B. Yeager,
Stubbornness of Pretexts,
40
San Diego L. Rev.
611
(2003).
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/fs/209