It Wasn’t Me—Unintended Targets of Arrest Warrants 

It Wasn’t Me—Unintended Targets of Arrest Warrants 

Innocent people are being arrested multiple times on arrest warrants intended for others. By virtue of sharing a name with someone who is the legitimate target of law enforcement, these innocent people experience unfair disruptions in their lives almost any time they have contact with law enforcement. As of today, the courts afford them no relief, based in part on a series of unfortunate interpretations of the Fourth Amendment. Nothing stops law enforcement from repeatedly arresting the same person as long as the person arrested has the opportunity to see a judge after spending several days in jail. Courts throughout this country accept that these innocent people can be arrested ad infinitum, as long as they see a judge within a reasonable amount of time.

This Note examines the development of jurisprudence on the particularity requirement in the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Through a series of logical missteps, courts have whittled away at the otherwise clear Fourth Amendment avenue of relief for the unintended targets of arrest warrants. As long as the name on the warrant is the correct name for the target of the warrant, courts deem the Warrant Clause satisfied. And the officers on the scene cannot be blamed for acting in good faith when they arrest an individual whose name is identical to the name on the warrant. Thus, the only avenue left for these victims is an inadequate Fourteenth Amendment over-detention analysis.

This Note asserts that the avenue for relief lies in following a correct interpretation of the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause that courts have thus far ignored. Under this interpretation, victims can obtain injunctive relief through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute permitting suit against persons acting under the color of state law for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights. Through this cause of action, victims can enjoin the organizations that issue these warrants to update them in a manner that satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. Most importantly, victims can stop worrying that every interaction with law enforcement will result in spending several days in jail for a crime they did not commit.


More in this Issue

A “Source” of Error: Computer Code, Criminal Defendants, and the Constitution

Evidence created by computer programs dominates modern criminal trials. From DNA to fingerprints to facial recognition evidence, criminal courts are confronting a deluge of evidence that is generated by computer programs. In a worrying trend, a growing number of courts have insulated this evidence from adversarial testing by preventing defendants from accessing the source code […]

Learned Hand’s Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence Law 

In a well-known tort decision, Judge Learned Hand observes that while legal standards almost always coincide with customary industry standards, strictly speaking custom never controls. This Essay examines the implications of this apparent paradox, concluding that courts must have final say in order to prevent doctrinal feedback loops—situations in which legal doctrine influences customary behavior […]

Wage Slave or Entrepreneur?: Contesting the Dualism of Legal Worker Identities

Today, whether a worker is legally classified as an “employee” or an “independent contractor” determines whether he or she is entitled to employment and labor law protections. With the proliferation of the on-demand economy, the doctrinal definitions and legal analyses of these categories are fiercely contested. While businesses have attempted to confine the definition of […]

Tailoring a Public Policy Exception to Trade Secret Protection

The growing importance of information resources as well as mounting threats to proprietary information in the digital age propelled federalization of trade secret protection onto the national legislative agenda during the past year. This salience provided a propitious opportunity to address a critical, overlooked failing of trade secret protection: the lack of a clear public […]