Mehra- Blog Post 6

 In “Bright Lines in Juvenile Justice,” Professor Berg explores the implications of “bright lines”-- clearly defined legal standards that may categorize people or events based on imperfect proxies-- through the framework of ideal justice. She argues that brights lines are necessary and justified with both ideal and non-ideal theory, despite their weaknesses making ideal theory less-than-ideal (4, 8). While making this case, Berg turns to the example of a juvenile classification determining the limits of an individual’s punishment. The particular line she discusses-- being 18 or not-- is clear, stagnant, and objective. However, there is extreme difficulty in drawing true and functional brights lines in most of the law. In exploring the ideas of exigent circumstances and enforceability, I will challenge the efficacy of bright lines at large. 

In 4th Amendment jurisprudence, Justices have created bright lines that aim to secure an individual’s right to privacy. For example, the exclusionary rule (established in Mapp v. Ohio) invalidates evidence obtained through unconstitutional means (such as without a valid warrant) in the court of law. 

However, so-called “bright lines” like these in 4th Amendment jurisprudence (and in many other legal areas) are not absolute or binding in exigent, or emergency, circumstances. The conditional nature central to many “bright lines” rules raises questions on their efficacy at large, and consequently, the degree to which this would challenge Berg’s justification of them. The exclusionary rule has many exceptions depending on what an officer deems to be an “exigent circumstance.” For example, if an officer has probable cause under exigent circumstances, he can enter private property and conduct a warrantless search. Additionally, the law defines “hot pursuit” as an exigent circumstance. The hot pursuit rule dictates that officers may enter an individual’s private property without a warrant and arrest them if the officer had witnessed the individual committing a felony. Lange v. California-- argued before the Supreme Court just last week-- questions whether what characterizes an exigent circumstance can be further broadened. Specifically, Lange questions whether the hot pursuit rule can be applied to misdemeanors as well as felonies. Exigent circumstances in 4th Amendment jurisprudence is just one of many examples that illustrate the extreme difficulty in drawing bright lines in the law. 

What challenges the efficacy of bright lines lies not only in legal exceptions that permit people to cross bright lines, but additionally in the punishment for crossing this line. If the sanction for crossing a bright line is not high enough, the line is not bright, but dim; not clear, but muddy. Take the 4th Amendment examples I have outlined. Officers must subjectively judge whether to cross a bright line. In crossing the line, they may obtain incriminating evidence-- think of this evidence as a reward for the officer. And if they cross the line without obtaining incriminating evidence, they can claim probable cause; in many cases, the consequences for the officer are not severe. Officers may also have additional legal protections in varied circumstances, such as qualified immunity. Despite this example being somewhat of a simplification and generalization, the lack of high sanctions against crossing this line almost incentivizes crossing it. What good is a bright line when you get rewarded for crossing it? What kind of sanctions, if any, could hold this line in place? 

Thus, while “Bright Lines and Juvenile Justice” uses an example of a bright line that is truly “bright,” it is important to understand that this kind of clarity and absoluteness is not universal in the law, and in fact, is rare. Exceptions, such as exigent circumstances, coupled with undaunting enforcement, “dim” bright lines, challenging their efficacy at large.