Akhil Reed Amar, Yale Law School, continues his course on constitutional precedent by arguing that the exclusionary rule is a poor remedial fit for Fourth Amendment violations, since the founding-era remedy for unreasonable searches was a tort suit against the offending officer, not suppression of evidence that frees the guilty. He then lays out a tiered theory of precedent: binding on lower courts, merely a starting point for the Supreme Court itself, and controlling only where strong reliance interests or deep popular acceptance have formed, citing paper money and Miranda warnings as examples. The lecture closes by applying this framework to Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Dickerson v. United States, testing whether the Court's own stare decisis reasoning in those cases holds up. Chapters move from remedies to vertical precedent to reliance interests, giving a structured legal argument rather than a survey of case law.