Understanding Search And Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, governs searches and seizures of things. It was ratified by the states in 1791 and proposed due to the Framers' experiences with the English Crown's power to search and seize people and property. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants. It is designed to protect people's right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable government intrusion.

Explore related products

Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment

$19.03 $27.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Civilian Rights Handguide: A Citizen's Guide to Navigating Police Encounters

$14.99

The Fourth Amendment in an Age of Surveillance

$33.24 $37

4th Amendment Poster - Print Featuring the Fourth Amendment - Constitutional Wall Art for Classroom, Teachers, Students - Vintage Wall Decor - Unframed 11x14 inch

$14.95

The Fourth Amendment Handbook, Fourth Edition

$96

The Fourth Amendment

The amendment does not guarantee protection against all searches and seizures, but only those deemed unreasonable under the law. The reasonableness of a search is determined by balancing the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights against legitimate government interests, such as public safety. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are generally considered unreasonable.

Unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It is part of the Bill of Rights, which initially restricted only the federal government. The Fourth Amendment sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment case law deals with three main issues: what government activities are "searches" and "seizures", what constitutes probable cause to conduct searches and seizures, and how to address violations of Fourth Amendment rights. The amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures, but only those deemed unreasonable under the law. The determination of reasonableness involves balancing the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights against legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The Fourth Amendment provides individuals with a reasonable expectation of privacy against government officers. It protects people from arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with their privacy and personal security. The amendment applies to intrusions on the privacy of individuals as well as to physical locations.

The remedy for an unreasonable search and seizure is the exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence obtained through such means from being introduced in criminal trials. This rule is often the defendant's only remedy, as government officials who perform unreasonable searches are protected by qualified immunity, which shields them from personal liability.

Warrants and probable cause

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It also sets requirements for issuing warrants. Warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement has historically been applied to physical seizures of tangible property. However, the issue of searches and seizures as applied to data has also come to the Supreme Court's attention in recent years. For example, in Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court held that police officers generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered. The usual definition of the probable cause standard includes "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances, sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true." This definition does not require that the person making the recognition holds public office or has public authority.

In the case of Berger v. New York (1967), the Supreme Court said that the purpose of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment is to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until the state has reason to believe that a specific crime is being committed or has been committed.

In the United States, the use of a trained dog to smell for narcotics has been ruled in several court cases as sufficient probable cause. For example, in United States v. Place (1983), a trained dog alerted DEA agents to the presence of drugs in Place's luggage at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. The DEA then procured a warrant and found a sizable amount of drugs in Place's luggage.

When issuing a warrant, a judge will consider the affidavit in support of the warrant, which must offer sufficient credible information to establish probable cause. Police officers can, in appropriate circumstances, obtain an "anticipatory search warrant," which is a warrant based on probable cause that, at some future time, evidence of a crime will be at a specific location.

Explore related products

Hands off my 4th Amendment Rights Sarcastic Bill of Rights T-Shirt

$19.99

Manufacturing Criminals: Fourth Amendment Decay in the Electronic Age

$25 $25

More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century (Inalienable Rights)

$17 $31.49

Bill of Rights 4th Amendment T-Shirt

$19.99

4th Amendment of the Constitution Long Sleeve T-Shirt

$21.99

The Right Of The People To Be Secure 4th Amendment BLACK Aluminum Composite Sign, 8.5"x10"

$14.99

Privacy rights

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It states that:

> [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment sets requirements for issuing warrants, which must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The amendment's case law deals with three main issues: what constitutes a "search" and "seizure", what constitutes probable cause to conduct searches and seizures, and how to address violations of Fourth Amendment rights. The amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law.

To claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, a claimant must prove that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was arbitrarily violated by the government. For example, a search of a student by a school official need only be reasonable under the circumstances and does not require a warrant. Similarly, an officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop without believing that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity.

The Fourth Amendment also does not apply to abandoned property or properties in an open field, as it is not considered reasonable to expect privacy in these situations.

The protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if an individual voluntarily consents to a warrantless search or seizure, or does not object to evidence collected during one.

The Supreme Court has played a key role in defining the boundaries of search and seizure laws, establishing the exclusionary rule, which disallows evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches from being used in court. This rule was established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914, where the Court invalidated a warrantless search of a home, declaring that if any federal searches violate the Fourth Amendment, no evidence discovered during those searches can be used against a defendant in court.

The Fourth Amendment aims to balance the necessity of police investigations with the protection of individual privacy and property rights. It emerged as a response to abuses by British authorities, leading to strong sentiments against general warrants that allowed unchecked searches.

Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants. While the Fourth Amendment creates a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's home and property, several exceptions may apply, particularly in emergencies and areas of public safety.

• Probable cause: A warrantless search may be lawful if there is probable cause to search, and there are exigent circumstances calling for a warrantless search. Exigent circumstances exist when people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect is about to escape.
• Consent: A warrantless search may be lawful if an officer has asked for and is given consent to search.
• Search incident to a lawful arrest: A search or seizure is generally considered unreasonable without a warrant, but law enforcement may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop.
• Plain view: Warrantless seizures of objects in plain view do not constitute seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
• Abandoned property: Warrantless seizure of abandoned property or property on an open field does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as it is not reasonable to expect a right to privacy in these cases.
• International borders: Officers at international borders may conduct routine stops and searches.
• Highway sobriety checkpoints: States may use highway sobriety checkpoints to combat drunk driving.
• School officials: School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student under their authority; the search need only be reasonable under the circumstances.
• National security: In foreign security cases, court opinions may differ on whether to accept the foreign security exception to the warrant requirement.

Frequently asked questions