Search, Seizure and (False?) Arrest: An Analysis of Fourth Amendment Remedies when Police can Plant Evidence
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures in criminal investigations. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to require that police obtain a warrant prior to search and that illegally seized evidence be excluded from trial. A consensus has developed in the law and economics literature that tort liability for police officers is a superior means of deterring unreasonable searches. We argue that this conclusion depends on the assumption of truth-seeking police, and develop a game-theoretic model to compare the two remedies when some police officers (the bad type) are willing to plant evidence in order to obtain convictions, even though other police (the good type) are not (where this type is private information). We characterize the perfect Bayesian equilibria of the asymmetric-information game between the police and a court that seeks to minimize error costs in deciding whether to convict or acquit suspects. In this framework, we show that the exclusionary rule with a warrant requirement leads to superior outcomes (relative to tort liability) in terms of truth-finding function of courts, because the warrant requirement can reduce the scope for bad types of police to plant evidence.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2003|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: University of Connecticut 365 Fairfield Way, Unit 1063 Storrs, CT 06269-1063|
Phone: (860) 486-4889
Fax: (860) 486-4463
Web page: http://www.econ.uconn.edu/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1988.
"Plea Bargaining and Prosecutorial Discretion,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 713-28, September.
- Bowles, Roger & Garoupa, Nuno, 1997. "Casual police corruption and the economics of crime," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 75-87, March.
- Daughety, A. & Reinganum, J., 1991.
"Keeping Society in the Dark : On the Admissibility of Pretrial Nogotiations as Evidence in Court,"
91-24, University of Iowa, Department of Economics.
- Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1995. "Keeping Society in the Dark: On the Admissibility of Pretrial Negotiations as Evidence in Court," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 203-221, Summer.
- Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1994. "Keeping Society in the Dark: On the Admissibility of Pretrial Negotiations As Evidence in Court," Game Theory and Information 9403008, EconWPA.
- Daughety, Andrew & Reinganum, Jennifer, 1994. "Keeping Society in the Dark: On the Admissibility of Pretrial Negotiations as Evidence in Court," Working Papers 94-06, University of Iowa, Department of Economics.
- Hugo Mialon & Sue Mialon, 2008. "The Economics of Search Warrants," Emory Economics 0810, Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta).
- Benjamin Lester & Nicola Persico & Ludo Visschers, 2012. "Information Acquisition and the Exclusion of Evidence in Trials," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 163-182.
- Schrag, Joel & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 1994. "Crime and Prejudice: The Use of Character Evidence in Criminal Trials," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 319-42, October.
- Mühlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas, 2005.
"Black Sheep and Walls of Silence,"
Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems
56, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Muehlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas, 2005. "Black Sheep and Walls of Silence," CEPR Discussion Papers 5308, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Gerd Muehlheusser & Andreas Roider, 2004. "Black Sheep and Walls of Silence," Diskussionsschriften dp0410, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
- Gerd Muehlheusser & Andreas Roider, 2004. "Black Sheep and Walls of Silence," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse17_2005, University of Bonn, Germany, revised Jun 2005.
- Muehlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas, 2004. "Black Sheep and Walls of Silence," IZA Discussion Papers 1171, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Grossman, Gene M & Katz, Michael L, 1983. "Plea Bargaining and Social Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 749-57, September.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 1999.
"Corruption and Optimal Law Enforcement,"
NBER Working Papers
6945, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jean-Pierre Benoit & Juan Dubra, 2004.
"Why Do Good Cops Defend Bad Cops?,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 45(3), pages 787-809, 08.
- Sue H. Mialon, 2008. "The Effects of the Fourth Amendment: An Economic Analysis," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 22-44, May.
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1996. "Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts," Discussion Papers 1170, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Dhammika Dharmapala & Richard H. McAdams, 2003. "The Condorcet Jury Theorem and the Expressive Function of Law: A Theory of Informative Law," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1-31.
- Miceli, Thomas J, 1990. "Optimal Prosecution of Defendants Whose Guilt Is Uncertain," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 189-201, Spring.
- Hugo M. Mialon, 2005.
"An Economic Theory of the Fifth Amendment,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 833-848, Winter.
- Atkins, Raymond A & Rubin, Paul H, 2003. "Effects of Criminal Procedure on Crime Rates: Mapping Out the Consequences of the Exclusionary Rule," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(1), pages 157-79, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2003-37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark McConnel)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.