Skip to main content
Stubbornness of Pretexts
Faculty Scholarship
  • Daniel B. Yeager, California Western School of Law
Document Type
Publication Date
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.
Citation Information
40 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW 611 (2003), reprinted in 31 SEARCH & SEIZURE LAW REP. 25 (2003).