Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2018. Issue 2 (40)


P. S. Pastukhov, Perm State University

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0003-0391-5540 ResearcherID: B-5451-2017
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       10.17072/1995-4190-2017-36-231-236 

G. Y. Borisevich, Perm State University

ORCID: 0000-0002-0843-9427 ResearcherID: P-5101-2016
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       10.17072/ idosi.mejsr 1995-4190-2016-1-90-97
Requisites: Pastukhov P. S., Borisevich G. Y. Osnovaniya dlya ogranicheniya prav grazhdan pri proizvodstve obyska v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve SSHA i ikh konstitutsionnaya zashchita [Grounds to Limit the Rights of the Citizens and their Constitutional Protection when Making Searches in the US Criminal Procedure]. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Juridicheskie Nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2018. Issue 40. Pp. 290–318. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2018-40-290-318
DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2018-40-290-318

Introduction: the article analyzes actual and legal grounds for limitation of civil rights when making searches in the criminal procedure of the USA as well as the constitutionally guaranteed personal rights provided for by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The research subject are the differences between continental and Anglo-American models of criminal procedure, the role of the police in apprehension, search and seizure of objects of criminal origins. The article investigates the role of the Supreme Court in the development of doctrines containing legal grounds to stop, search and arrest individuals suspected of criminal activities in various spheres. The paper shows how important it is to study and make use of other countries’ experience in combating crime. Purpose: to provide insights into the peculiarities of applying coercive measures when making searches, the observance of constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties, and providing balance between legal enforcement and liberty. Methods: the methodological framework of the research is based on a set of methods of scientific cognition, with dialectical method being the leading one. The study used general scientific methods (dialectics, analysis and synthesis, abstracting and specification) and specific scientific ones (comparative legal and technical legal). Results: the research results include analysis of legislative regulation, case law development, practice in the application and interpretation of actual and legal limitations of civil rights when making searches in the criminal procedure of the USA, and also constitutional guarantees of civil rights in this country. It is shown that in the course of social development, increase in crime, appearance of forensic equipment allowing for intrusion into privacy, there has been a change in the understanding and legislative regulation of the grounds for making searches. Conclusions: the major part in the clarification of the limits of intrusion into privacy is played by the US Supreme Court, which in its precedents determines the limits of lawfulness or unlawfulness for making searches, apprehensions and seizures of objects of criminal origin. In its operations, the Supreme Court seeks to find a reasonable balance between personal, social and governmental interests, which determines the development of doctrines with the account of changing social relationships. The paper also states that legislative regulation has evolved from unlimited searches and arrests allowed at early stages of the state development to precise recommendations and establishing limits meeting constitutional requirements set by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Keywords: apprehension; search and seizure; US criminal procedure; constitutionally protected privacy; limitation of constitutional rights and liberties; doctrines and standards of the US Supreme Court
  download the full-version article
References: 1. Burnham W. Pravovaya sistema SShA
[Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States]. Moscow, 2006. 1216 p. (In Russ.).
2. Golovko L. V., Gutsenko K. F., Filimonov B. A. Ugolovnyy protsess v sovremennykh zaru¬bezhnykh gosudarstvakh [Criminal Process in Modern Foreign States]. Moscow, 2002. 528 p. (In Russ.).
3. Makhov V. N., Peshkov M. A. Ugolovnyy pro¬tsess SShA (dosudebnye stadii) [The USA Criminal Proceedings (Pretrial Stages)]. Moscow, 1998. 208 p. (In Russ.).
4. Pastukhov P. S. Rol' i znachenie spetsial'nykh znaniy v informatsionno-tekhnologicheskom obespechenii ugolovno-protsessual'nogo doka¬zyvaniya [Role and Importance of Technical Knowledge in Information Technology Support of the Criminal Procedure Proof]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2014. Issue 1. Pp. 298–304. (In Russ.).
5. Pastukhov P. S., Losavio M. Ispol'zovanie informatsionnykh tekhnologiy dlya obespecheniya bezopasnosti lichnosti, obshchestva i gosudarstva [Use of Information Technology to Ensure Security of the Individual, Society and State]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2017. Issue 36. Pp. 231–236. 242 p. DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2017-36-231-236. (In Russ.).
6. Stoyko N. G., Semukhina O. B. Ugolovnyy protsess v SShA [Criminal Proceedings in the USA]. Krasnoyarsk, 2000. 315 p. (In Russ.).
7. Shevchenko T. A. Ugolovnoe pravosudie SShA: kniga dlya chteniya po angliyskomu yazyku [Criminal Justice in the USA: Book for Reading in English]. Volgograd, 2004. 124 p. (In Russ.).
8. Carlan Ph. E. An Introduction to Criminal Law; Philip E. Carlan, Lisa S. Nored, and Ragan A. Downey. University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg. Mississippi, 2011. 224 p. (In Eng.).
9. Dressier J., Michaels A. C. Understanding Criminal Procedure: Investigation. Vol. 1. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2006. 441 p. (In Eng.).
10. Jarrett M. H., Bailie M. W. Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations. 2009. Available at:
ssmanual2009.pdf (accessed 10.02.2018). (In Eng.).
11. LaFave W. R., Israel J. H., King N. J. Criminal Procedure. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 2004. 519 p. (In Eng.).
12. Lippman M. R. Criminal Procedure. University of Illinois at Chicago, 2014. 648 p. (In Eng.).
13. Scheb J. M., Scheb II J. M. Criminal Law and Procedure. Wadsworth, 2011. 758 p. (In Eng.).
14. Weaver R. L., Abramson L. W., Burkoff J. M., Hancock C. Principle of Criminal Procedure. Thomson West, 2007. 448 p. (In Eng.).
15. Worrall J. L. Criminal Procedure: from First Contact to Appeal. University of Texas at Dallas, 2007. 543 p. (In Eng.).
Received: 01.07.2017
Financing: ---





The Perm State University
614990, Perm, street Bukireva, 15
+7 (342) 2 396 275
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
(с) Editorial board, 2010
The magazine is registered in Federal Agency of supervision in sphere of communication and mass communications.
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013

The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing

The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year