Vanderbilt Law Review


Adam K. Peck

First Page



This Recent Development argues that although an opinion endorsed by only two justices is not binding precedent, this portion of Segura represents an undesirable departure from the strict protections traditionally afforded a person's privacy interest in the home and leaves lower courts confused about the constitutional limitations on seizures in the home. Part II examines prior Supreme Court opinions that have defined the parameters of permissible warrantless searches and seizures. Part III explores the circuit court opinions that have developed a "securing of the premises"exception. Part IV describes Chief Justice Burger's analysis in Segura. Part V argues that the Chief Justice's holding is not sup-ported by prior case law and unnecessarily erodes the privacy interest in the home. This Recent Development concludes by urging the Court to adopt an analytical framework, based on the circuit courts' "securing of the premises" exception, that more carefully balances the public need for law enforcement against the privacy interest in the home.