The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches” is one of the most storied constitutional commands Yet after decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, a coherent definition of the term “search” remains surprisingly elusive Even the justices know they have a problem Recent opinions only halfheartedly apply the controlling “reasonable expectation of privacy” test and its wildly unpopular cousin, “third-party doctrine,” with a few justices in open revolt.

These fissures hint at the Court’s openness to a new approach Unfortunately, no viable alternatives appear on the horizon The justices themselves offer little in the way of a replacement And scholars’ proposals exhibit the same complexity, subjectivity, and illegitimacy that pervade the status quo.

This Article proposes a shift toward simplicity Buried underneath the doctrinal complexity of the past fifty years is a straightforward constitutional directive A three-part formula, derived from the constitutional text, deftly solves the Fourth Amendment “search” conundrums that continue to beguile the Court This textualist approach offers clarity and legitimacy, both long missing from “search” jurisprudence And by generating predictable and sensible answers, the proposed framework establishes clear boundaries for police investigation while incentivizing legislators to add additional privacy protections where needed.