pageok
pageok
pageok
Clancy, "The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation":
I recently received a copy of a new Fourth Amendment treatise, a one-volume work by Professor Thomas K. Clancy of the University of Mississippi Law School: The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation. I've spent some time looking through it, and I find it a very noteworthy addition to the Fourth Amendment literature. I wanted to flag it for interested readers.

  On one hand, Professor Clancy's book is a standard treatise: It takes you through the doctrine in a very clean and straightforward way. At the same time, Clancy does two things that are unusual in modern Fourth Amendment treatises. First, Clancy takes the history and text very seriously. He includes coverage of common law practice where relevant, and he carefully compares common law standards to modern ones and explains how the law has evolved. The historical treatment makes the book a helpful resource for scholars or folks just interested in originalism. More narrowly, it's also helpful for advocates working on Supreme Court cases who are looking for Scalia's vote.

  Second, Professor Clancy avoids editorial comment. His focus is on explaining the law and its contours as clearly as possible, without expressing a view as to whether a hypothetical Justice Clancy would have concurred or dissented. I found a few places where there was editorial comment in the footnotes in response to relevant Fourth Amendment scholarship, but that was about it. I think that's very refreshing: It makes the book much more readable, as you get a nice, clear summary of the doctrine. That's not to say the book is unsophisticated; it offers a very high-level and thoughtful engagement with the cases. But the book is clearly designed to be helpful to the reader, not an argument for reform.

  Anyway, the book retails for $90, but at least right now there's a "used" copy available for sale from Amazon for $31. If you're interested in the Fourth Amendment, it's very much worth checking out.
J. Aldridge:
[Deleted by OK on relevance grounds. Back on your meds, J.]
10.22.2008 12:04am
GuestPerson884:
I don't think Professor Clancy wants you selling your used copy of his book on Amazon, Professor Kerr : )

Just kidding man.
10.22.2008 12:14am
J. Aldridge:
[Deleted by OK. J. Aldridge, this is my blog, not your blog: If you want to hijack threads, create threads at your blog and say whatever you like in them.]
10.22.2008 1:02am
Cornellian (mail):
With a name like Tom Clancy you'd think he'd be writing about the Second Amendment.
10.22.2008 1:03am
Dave N (mail):
I personally liked Hunt for Red October. Hope this is up to that level.
10.22.2008 2:21am
Dave N (mail):
On a serious note, I have heard Professor Clancy speak at a couple of CLE conferences I have attended at the Ole Miss campus. He seemed like a very sharp guy. While teaching ability and writing ability are not necessarily synonymous, his ability to do the former makes me much more likely (along with OK's favorable review) to see how he does with the latter.

I might even buy a copy (used, of course).

Oh, and I am also pretty sure that Professor Clancy has heard just about every joke regarding his more famous namesake--I guess when you share a name with someone truly famous, you learn to take it in stride.
10.22.2008 2:26am
James Gibson (mail):
According to the Heller Dissent of Justice Stevens (Breyer, Ginsberg and Souter concurring) all of the first ten amendments to the constitution are collective rights (thus insuring that the 2nd is collective). This also includes freedom or speech, religion, press, the right to elect your representative to Congress and particularly the right to petition (even Habeous Corpus). Does this new book state that this amendment is a collective right or an individual?
10.22.2008 2:28am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Oh, and I am also pretty sure that Professor Clancy has heard just about every joke regarding his more famous namesake--I guess when you share a name with someone truly famous, you learn to take it in stride.
Either that, or he goes around saying, "Why should I change? That no-talent assclown is the one who sucks."
10.22.2008 2:48am
John M. Perkins (mail):
Why should he change, that no-talent Oriole owner has helped the Orioles suck.
10.22.2008 11:24am
Kent Scheidegger (mail) (www):
The alternative seller copy on Amazon is new, not used. Not sure why it's so much less, but I jumped on it. Thanks for the tip, Orin. It will be good to have an alternative to LaFave in our library.
10.22.2008 12:51pm
Thomas Clancy (mail):
I appreciate Orin's comments about my new book. They are very kind and I think largely capture what I attempted to do with the book. I add, however, that one of the goals of the book was to provide an alternative view to the Court's views on the major aspects of the Amendment: What is a search? What is a seizure? What does the Amendment protect: privacy or security? What is reasonable? My positions on these questions are not interwoven with historical or current doctrine but are in separate sections within the relevant chapters. Thus, those who are interested in those views can read on but those who are not -- but desire to understand current doctrine and how we got there -- have a resource to do so.
10.22.2008 1:25pm
Shertaugh:
Orin:

Thanks for the tip. In a few words, can you tell us the author's view on (i) the "warrant requirement" -- i.e., that absent exigent circumstances (or any other exception), the 4th A requires a warrant to conduct a search, (ii) the "good faith" exception, and (iii) the incorporation doctrine (discussed but the contours of which were left unresolved in Groh v. Ramirez?
10.22.2008 5:42pm
OrinKerr:
Shertaugh,

Given that the author wrote the comment above yours, why don't you ask him instead of me?
10.22.2008 9:11pm
krs:
Shertaugh, are you joking?
10.23.2008 1:20pm