Washington Law Review


Sarah L. Klevit


This Note examines the Supreme Court's conflicting policies and how the Underwood court resolved them. To set a framework for analyzing the case, it discusses the Supreme Court's protection of privacy rights in the home and the Court's recent limitations on the standing doctrine. The Note reviews the facts and holding of Underwood, then illustrates both the problems with the court's reasoning and those created by its decision to uphold the search. Finally, this Note suggests that the Ninth Circuit's approach in Underwood was wrong and proposes, instead, a two-step test for analyzing similar search and seizure cases. Not only is this approach analytically consistent with Supreme Court precedent, but it also allows wider use of the exclusionary rule to suppress illegally seized evidence than is possible under the Underwood holding.

First Page