Reposted by Eric Fish
Now out in the Northwestern University Law Review! I chart the textual development of search-and-seizure provisions from 1776 to the present. While textual variations often don't produce divergence from federal jurisprudence, I argue they should.
scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol121/...
![TEXTUAL (IN)DIFFERENCE IN STATE SEARCHAND-SEIZURE PROVISIONS
Quinn Yeargain
ABSTRACT—Over the past 250 years, state constitutional drafters have refined the scope of rights and liberties protected by their constitutions’ texts. Today, all state constitutions include a search-and-seizure provision—and though only a minority follow the layout, text, and context of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most of them bear a striking resemblance to it. However, textual variations abound. Some of them may seem minor, like using the word “possessions” instead of “effects,” or mandating that warrants describe their intended targets “as nearly as may be” instead of requiring that they “particularly describ[e]” them. But others, like the addition of “electronic data and communications,” are far more significant. Yet regardless of the nature of the addition, most courts do not seem to view these linguistic changes as legally significant. While there are some exceptions, most state courts effectively gloss over the textual differences when interpreting the scope of their searchand-seizure provisions.
In this Essay, I argue that these textual differences could alter the applicability of several doctrines from federal criminal procedure jurisprudence—and that they should not be read out of state constitutions. Relying on an original database of state constitutions and proposed amendments, I chart out the textual changes to state constitutions’ search-and-seizure provisions from 1776 to present, survey case law interpreting these provisions, and conclude that while courts have largely not treated these differences as relevant, they should.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:q3dycka5ce2gybcbau5gfehd/bafkreicqgcrigwgxvhobnftdhagc33znvle5a4a44brqhau7c7avrbqrum)
![Who Did the Trump Administration Just Send to El Salvador’s Dungeons?
The list below is an excerpt from tomorrow’s Border Update, which I’m still drafting. But it deserves to be shared separately.
On March 20 CBS News obtained and published a full list of all 238 Venezuelan men whom the Trump administration sent to El Salvador on March 15, despite a judge’s orders. It appears that 137 had no due process at all—they were sent under the fourth-ever invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The other 101 apparently had orders of removal.
But even though none committed any crimes in El Salvador, the government of Nayib Bukele sent them directly to the “Center for Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT),” a mega-jail built about two years ago to hold gang members, from which no prisoner is known to have been released.
For many of their loved ones, the CBS list was the first confirmation of their whereabouts. “Family members of the men say they’ve had no way to communicate with their loved ones,” noted Jonathan Lemire and Nick Miroff at the Atlantic, “So they study the [Salvadoran government’s] propaganda videos for glimpses of sons and spouses among the deportees.”
Here are profiles that I’ve seen of 15 of them, with links to sources. They really do not seem to be gang members at all.
Gustavo Adolfo Aguilera Agüero, 27, had been living in Dallas with his wife since December 2023, when they entered the United States with a CBP One appointment. In early February 2025, Aguilera was arrested while taking out the trash outside their home, his wife told the Miami Herald. He has a nine-month-old U.S. citizen son. His tattoos include his older, Venezuelan-born son’s name, his name and his mother’s name, and a reggaeton lyric. His mother says he has no criminal record.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:t5hgkoxrsxpe3wfisqfeymg5/bafkreicwejjymd2hvlk2v7cwsxs3nwarg6gkknkig7v2einrl2ox63mf6e)
