The most recent U.S. Supreme Court term yielded three eye-catching criminal cases interpreting the Fourth Amendment. At first glance, Lange v. California, Caniglia v. Strom, and Torres v. Madrid appear to announce sweeping new rules curtailing law enforcement’s ability to conduct searches and seizures. But, a closer look reveals each opinion was carefully drawn to limit its scope so that, as the court itself acknowledges, these decisions are unlikely to have significant impact on the conduct of law enforcement or the fate of criminal prosecutions.

One likely result is that by eschewing bright-line rules in favor of case-by-case analysis in which lower courts are directed to examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred, the court has almost certainly increased the amount of Fourth Amendment litigation headed for the lower courts.