Circuit split · criminal procedure

Which Fourth Amendment test applies to the challenged government conduct

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

Banks v. United States490 F3D 1178
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · June 18, 2007
“Like the circuit split on which Fourth-Amendment test to apply, our own precedents are divided.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

On the other side · 7th Cir.Green v. Berge354 F.3d 675
On the other side · 2d Cir.Roe v. Marcotte193 F.3d 72
“Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.1999), the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits apply a reasonableness test informed by the totality of the circumstances, see United States v.” — Banks v. United States, acknowledging the split
On the other side · 8th Cir.United States v. Kraklio451 F.3d 922
On the other side · D.C.Cir.Johnson v. Quander440 F.3d 489
On the other side · 3d Cir.United States v. Sczubelek402 F.3d 175
On the other side · 11th Cir.Padgett v. Donald401 F.3d 1273
On the other side · 9th Cir.United States v. Kincade379 F.3d 813
On the other side · 5th Cir.Groceman v. U.S. Dep't of Justice354 F.3d 411
On the other side · 4th Cir.Jones v. Murray962 F.2d 302
On the other side · 10th Cir.Shaffer v. Saffle148 F.3d 1180
On the other side · 10th Cir.Boling v. Romer101 F.3d 1336
“Romer, 101 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir.1996), with approval and upholding a State DNA-indexing statute under the Fourth Amendment’s totality-of-the-eircumstances test); Schlicher, 103 F.3d at 943 (same); Boling, 101 F.3d at 1339-40 (applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test and concluding that a State DNA-indexing statute is constitutional).” — Banks v. United States, acknowledging the split
On the other side · 10th Cir.Schlicher v. Peters103 F.3d 940
“Peters, 103 F.3d 940 , 942-43 (10th Cir.1996) (stating that “the collection, analysis and storage of blood and saliva ...” — Banks v. United States, acknowledging the split
On the other side · 10th Cir.United States v. Kimler335 F.3d 1132
“Notably, Kimler neither explained why building a DNA database is a special need, nor applied a balancing test to determine whether this special need outweighed the defendant’s right to privacy.” — Banks v. United States, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Doctrines & tests:: special-needs analysis ·; totality-of-the-circumstances test ·; reasonableness test ·; special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement
Constitutional provisions:: Fourth Amendment

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.