Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:03:53.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dimensions of Attitudes Underlying Search and Seizure Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

C. L. Ostberg  and
Matthew Wetstein
C. L. Ostberg
Affiliation:
University of the Pacific
Matthew Wetstein
Affiliation:
San Joaquin Delta College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While prior studies have applied schema theory to belief systems in the mass public, it has yet to be used to assess attitudes held by elites in society. This article uses schema theory to suggest that justices of the Supreme Court of Canada employ an information processing model when deciding search and seizure cases. Specifically, it implies that the justices have a schema, or an organized set of attitudes, that are triggered by the factual and legal circumstances in particular search and seizure cases. The belief that justices would use such a heuristic device makes sense, given that they are expected to resolve disputes in a quick and efficient manner as well as maintain consistency in the law. The study uses factor analysis to provide evidence that there is an underlying structure to the attitudes that Canadian justices use in these cases (1984–1994). It adds to the prior research in this area, because it moves schema theory beyond the study of mass belief systems, and it represents a unique way of assessing the judicial decision-making process of Canadian justices since the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Résumé

Alors que les études antérieures ont appliqué la théorie schématique aux systèmes de croyance des masses, cette théorie n'a pas encore été employée pour évaluer les attitudes affichées par les élites de la société. Cet article utilise la théorie schématique pour soutenir que les juges de la Cour suprême du Canada emploient un modèle de renseignements lorsqu'ils se prononcent sur des cas relatifs aux fouilles, perquisitions et saisies. Plus spécifiquement, l'article explique comment les juges adoptent un schéma, ou des attitudes organisées, qui sont le fruit des circonstances légales et factuelles. La croyance selon laquelle les juges utiliseraient une telle approche heuristique semble prudente étant donné que ces derniers sont censés résoudre les litiges d'une manière rapide et efficace tout en maintenant le caractère cohérent de la loi. L'étude utilise l'analyse de facteur pour mettre en évidence l'existence d'une structure fondamentale concernant les attitudes que les juges canadiens affichent dans les cas retenus (1984–1994). Elle ajoute aux recherches antérieures dans ce domaine dans la mesure où elle va au-delà de la théorie schématique appliquée au systèmes de croyances des masses. Elle met de l'avant une façon unique d'évaluer le processus de prise de décision judiciaire depuis l'adoption en 1982 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 767 - 787
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Converse, Philip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, David, ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: John Wiley, 1964), 202–261Google Scholar; Nie, Norman, Verba, Sidney and Petrocik, John R., The Changing American Voter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976Google Scholar); and Conover, Pamela Johnston and Feldman, Stanley, “How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model,” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984), 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ibid., 95; Hammill, Ruth, Lodge, Milton and Blake, Frederick, “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility of Class, Partisan, and Ideological Schemata,” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1985), 850–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen, Conover, Pamela Johnston, Feldman, Stanley and Miller, Arthur H., “Where Is the Schema? Critiques,” American Political Science Review 85 (1991), 1357–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Conover and Feldman, “How People Organize the Political World,” 95.

4 Fiske, Susan and Taylor, Shelley, Social Cognition (New York: Random House, 1984), 140.Google Scholar

5 Conover and Feldman, “How People Organize the Political World,” 96; Hammill et al., “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility.” See also the controversy over the schema framework published by the American Political Science Review in 1991: Kuklinski, James, Luskin, Robert and Bolland, John, “Where Is the Schema? Going Beyond the (S) Word in Political Psychology,” American Political Science Review 85 (1991), 1341–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lodge et al., “Where Is the Schema?”

6 For examples, see Conover and Feldman, “How People Organize the Political World” Hammill et al., “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility” Jacoby, William, “Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes,” American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991), 178–205;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAllen, Richard, Dawson, Michael and Brown, Ronald, “A Schema-Based Approach to Modelling African-American Racial Belief Systems,” American Political Science Review 83 (1989), 123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Erber, Ralph and Lau, Richard, “Political Cynics Revisited: An Information-Processing Reconciliation of Policy-Based and Incumbency-Based Interpretations of Changes in Trust in the Government,” American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990), 236–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graber, Doris, Processing the News (New York: Longman, 1984Google Scholar); Lodge, Milton and Hammill, Ruth, “A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing,” American Political Science Review 80 (1986), 505–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Arthur, Wattenberg, Martin and Malanchuk, Oksana, “Schematic Assessment of Presidential Candidates,” American Political Science Review 80 (1986), 521–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peffley, Mark and Hurwitz, John, “A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint,” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1985), 871–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Brown, Steven D., Lambert, Ronald D., Kay, Barry J. and Curtis, James E., “In the Eye of the Beholder: Leaders Images in Canada,” this Journal 21 (1988), 729–755Google Scholar. See also the various studies published in Lau, Richard and Sears, David, eds., Political Cognition (Hillsdale: Earlbaum, 1986).Google Scholar

7 Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren and Stokes, Donald, The American Voter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960)Google Scholar; and Nie et al., The Changing American Voter.

8 For data on the increasing case load of the US Supreme Court, see Segal, Jeffrey, “Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual-Level Analysis of the Search and Seizure Cases,” Journal of Politics 48 (1986), 938–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Baum, Lawrence, The Supreme Court (5th ed.; Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1995Google Scholar). For data on the Supreme Court of Canada, see Morton, F. L., Russell, Peter and Withey, Michael, “Judging the Judges: The Supreme Court's First One Hundred Charter Decisions,” in Fox, Paul and White, Graham, eds., Politics: Canada (7th ed.; Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1991), 59–79Google Scholar; Russell, Peter, “The Supreme Court in the 1980s: A Commentary on the S.C.R. Statistics,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 30 (1992), 771–795Google Scholar; Knopf, Rainer and Morton, F. L., Charter Politics (Scarborough: Nelson 1992Google Scholar); McCormick, Peter, Canada's Courts (Toronto: James Lorimer 1994Google Scholar); and Epp, Charles, “Do Bills of Rights Matter? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” American Political Science Review 90 (1996), 765–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Conover and Feldman, “How People Organize the Political World” and Fiske, Susan T. and Linville, Patricia, “What Does the Schema Concept Buy Us?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6 (1980), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Segal, “Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers” and Segal, Jeffery and Spaeth, Harold, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

11 A list of the cases used in the study is provided below in the appendix.

12 The data set contained 41 cases, with each justice's vote representing one unit of analysis. In other words, the number of observations in the data set is equal to the number of justices voting in each case, for a total number of observations of 279.

13 Segal, “Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers” and Segal and Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.

14 Segal, “Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers” and Segal and Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.

15 We have borrowed much of the description of the data and variables from a prior study (Ostberg, C. L. and Wetstein, Matthew, “Search and Seizure Cases in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending an American Model of Judicial Decision Making Across Countries,” unpublished manuscript, Stockton, California, August 1997Google Scholar).

16 Tate, C. Neal and Sittiwong, Panu, “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model across Nations,” Journal of Politics 51 (1989), 900–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tate, C. Neal, “Personal Attributes Models of Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions,” American Political Science Review 75 (1981), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Our newspaper ideology score focused on news accounts in The Globe and Mail (Toronto) because a search of a Canadian newspaper index revealed that only The Globe and Mail published consistent stories on the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court. Moreover, The Globe and Mail is widely regarded as a newspaper of record in Canada. When we conducted the content analysis of the stories, we searched for statements that clearly identified the ideological position of the appointed justice. For example, when we found descriptions of a justice as “progressive” or “liberal” or “liberal minded,” we categorized that appointee as a very liberal justice (1.0). Justices described as “moderate-liberal” or as “moderate” and having been affiliated with the Liberal party in the past, were placed in a moderate liberal category (0.5). When we encountered phrases such as “moderate” or “middle of the road,” we classified the justice as a moderate justice (0.0). In the absence of any ideological commentary, we also categorized the justices as moderate, working on the assumption that in most cases ideological commentary would have been published if the justice had a clear political leaning. The full coding scheme for the justices is listed below:

18 Baum, The Supreme Court; Segal and Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model; and Wasby, Stephen, The Supreme Court in the Federal Judicial System (4th ed.; Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1993Google Scholar).

19 Segal, Jeffrey and Cover, Albert, “Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Court Justices,” American Political Science Review 83 (1989), 557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cameron, Charles M., Cover, Albert and Segal, Jeffrey, “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model,” American Political Science Review 84 (1990), 525–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Segal and Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.

20 Kim, Jae-On and Mueller, Charles, Introduction to Factor Analysis: What It Is and How to Do It, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07–013 (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A variation of the factor analytic approach used in this study was first presented in Flango, Victor and Ducat, Craig, “Toward an Integration of Public Law and Judicial Behavior,” Journal of Politics 39 (1977), 41–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Tate, C. Neal, “The Methodology of Judicial Behavior Research: A Review and Critique,” Political Behavior 5 (1983), 51–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ducat, Craig and Dudley, Robert, “Dimensions Underlying Economic Policymaking in the Early and Later Burger Courts,” Journal of Politics 49 (1987), 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; R. v. Tessier, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 687; R. v. Erickson, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 649; R. v. Dersch, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; and R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20.

22 R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; and R. v. Dersch, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768.

23 R. v. Genereux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; R. v. Hammill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; R. v. Thompson, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; and R. v. Grant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223.

24 In R. v. Grant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223, police initially conducted a perimeter search of a home without warrant, then used that information to obtain a warrant to search the house for drugs.

25 Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; Kourtessis v. M.N.R., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; and Comite Partitaire de L'lndustrie de La Chemise v. Potash, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406.

26 R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; and R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265. Although Collins was not a border search, it had a moderately high loading on Factor 3 because the case involved an invasive drug search, and, like the other three, no warrant had been obtained prior to the search, and it was deemed unlawful by the Court.

27 R. v. Duarte, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; R. v. Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; R. v. Boersma, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 488; and R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140.

28 R. v. Sieben, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 295; R. v. Hammill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; R. v. Tessier, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 687; and R. v. Gimson, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 692. R. v. Sieben and R. v. Hammill involved searches by police on the basis of a writ of assistance under the Narcotic Control Act rather than a warrant, and that portion of the statute had not yet been struck down by the Court at the time of the search.

29 R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; R. v. Wiggins, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 62; R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; and R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615.

30 R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527.

31 Morton, F. L., Russell, Peter and Riddell, Troy, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Descriptive Analysis of the First Decade, 1982–1992,” National Journal of Constitutional Law 5 (1994), 1–58.Google Scholar

32 See Baum, The Supreme Court; Segal and Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model; Rohde, David and Spaeth, Harold, Supreme Court Decision Making (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976Google Scholar); and Glick, Henry, ed., Courts in American Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990).Google Scholar

33 For an introduction to logistic regression techniques, see Aldrich, John and Nelson, Forrest, Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07–045 (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Segal and Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.