Within the literal statement of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, no reference is made as to what type of material is lawfully subject to search and seizure. In fact, the amendment gives the impression that anything is the lawful subject of seizure so long as the place to be searched "and the persons or things to be seized" are "particularly described." However, the Supreme Court has not so interpreted this amendment. Their interpretation of the amendment limits the type of articles subject to seizure. This limitation is known as the Gouled Rule. The discussion which follows deals primarily with the Rule's development and application to various factual situations. In this discussion the question impliedly raised but left unanswered can be stated: Due to the confusion in the courts concerning the Rule's application, what is the current utility of having such a Rule?
Ronald H. Heck,
The Gouled Rule: Current Utility,
Duq. L. Rev.
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol4/iss4/6