,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Interesting discussion of 4th Am originalism in the context of Terry v. Ohio by Judge William Pryor today. 1st, we can't use it b/c we're bound by precedent, and second, it's not clear where originalism takes us here. media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f… 
Which reminds me: There is really interesting work to be done on whether Terry v. Ohio is correct on originalist grounds. For example, what to make of common law rules on detaining night-walkers and vagrants? Analogous or no? Don't know, but fun Qs. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
Oh, and if you want to write an article that will be cited by the Supreme Court someday, you should write about this.
FWIW, in his MN v. Dickerson concurrence, Justice Scalia argued that the Terry stop authority was likely correct on originalist grounds but that the Terry frisk authority was doubtful. law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-…
