Omar Bennett
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment outlaws illegal searches and seizures by the government, requiring a warrant based on probable cause for any search or seizure to be legal. The amendment also protects the right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment in numerous cases, shaping the understanding of what constitutes a search and seizure and the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal searches.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date passed by Congress | 25 September 1789 |
| Date ratified | 15 December 1791 |
| Prohibits | Federal government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures |
| Requires | Government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to conduct a legal search and seizure |
| Applies to | Arrests and the collection of evidence |
| Does not apply to | All searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law |
| Notable decisions | In 1947, the Court held that law enforcement had to obtain a search warrant "whenever reasonably practicable." |
| In 1950, the Court ruled that the test was not whether it was reasonably practicable to obtain a warrant but whether the search itself was reasonable | |
| Katz v. United States (1967) is the leading case on Fourth Amendment searches | |
| Mapp serves as a crucial check on police powers | |
| Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) | |
| Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. | |
| New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985) | |
| Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009) | |
| Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) | |
| United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourth Amendment and the right to privacy
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to privacy by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant and probable cause. It states that "the 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".
The Fourth Amendment was created in response to increasing infringements on privacy in both the colonies and England. In England, "general warrants" allowed royal officials to search the belongings of anyone they suspected of being a political enemy. In the colonies, "writs of assistance" allowed officials to conduct warrantless searches for untaxed items. The Fourth Amendment aimed to prevent these types of unjust searches and seizures.
The Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to conduct a legal search and seizure. However, the Supreme Court has created several exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example, a warrantless search may be lawful if an officer has consent to search, if there is probable cause with exigent circumstances, or if the search is incident to a lawful arrest.
The Fourth Amendment has been the subject of debate in the 20th and 21st centuries, particularly regarding the government's surveillance programs. Supporters of these programs argue that they are necessary for national security and crime deterrence. Critics argue that these programs are too invasive and violate the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. Courts have required claimants to prove that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated by the government. The definition of "reasonable" has been a topic of discussion in the Supreme Court for over two hundred years, and technological advancements have further complicated this issue.
Understanding the Fifth Amendment: Constitutional Rights Explained
You may want to see also
What constitutes a 'search'
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the federal government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection against all searches and seizures, but only those deemed unreasonable under the law.
The Fourth Amendment states:
> The 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 requires the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to conduct a legal search and seizure. However, the Supreme Court has carved out numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under the circumstances.
The Supreme Court has held that any evidence resulting from an illegal police search constitutes "fruit of the poisonous tree," meaning that the evidence would not have been found had it not been for the unlawful search.
The Fourth Amendment's use of the word "search" is not used in its ordinary sense. The conclusion that a search has occurred depends on the type of government activity used to obtain the evidence. This may include physical manipulation, visual observations, other use of the senses, and the employment of instrumentalities such as a dog's nose or technological devices.
Thomas K. Clancy proposes that any intrusion with the purpose of obtaining physical evidence or information, either by a technological device or the use of the senses, into a protected interest should be considered a search and, therefore, must be justified as reasonable.
Amendment Story: 21st Amendment's Addition to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Search warrants and probable cause
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the federal government. It requires that any search or arrest be based on probable cause and be supported by a warrant. The probable cause requirement must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed or when evidence of a crime is present in the place to be searched.
The Fourth Amendment states that "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." This means that the place to be searched must be described in the warrant, and the warrant must also describe the items to be seized. The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral party to decide whether law enforcement has probable cause to conduct a search.
To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement officers must show they have reliable and sufficient facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe a criminal act has been committed and that evidence or a person subject to seizure is at the location to be searched. Probable cause for a warrant cannot be based on what a subsequent search uncovers but only on the facts known when the warrant was issued.
There are some exceptions where searches can occur without a warrant, such as during lawful arrests or if evidence is in plain view. However, these instances are strictly regulated to safeguard individual rights. In some cases, a judge may issue a search warrant based on an affidavit that offers sufficient credible information to establish probable cause.
The 23rd Amendment: A Historic Addition in 1961
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Exceptions to the warrant requirement
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the federal government. It requires the government to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search of people or their property. However, the Supreme Court has carved out several exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Plain View Doctrine
Evidence in plain view of an officer in a location where the officer is legally permitted to be can be used without a warrant.
Automobile Exception
Depending on the circumstances, warrants are not required for certain automobile searches. The inherent mobility of automobiles would make it impractical for officers to always obtain a warrant prior to a search. In addition, people have a lesser expectation of privacy in their vehicles.
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
After arresting an individual, officers can search the individual and the immediate area to ensure there are no weapons within reach of the arrestee or evidence that could be destroyed.
Consent Searches
Individuals with authority over a location or apparent authority over a location can give consent to a warrantless search if the consent is voluntary.
Exigent Circumstances
Officers can forgo obtaining a warrant in an emergency to render aid, ensure public safety, or preserve evidence that is in immediate danger of being removed or destroyed.
Border Searches
Border searches do not require a warrant, probable cause, or suspicion of any kind.
School Searches
School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student; the search need only be reasonable under the circumstances.
Ending Lame Duck Sessions: The 20th Amendment's Legacy
You may want to see also
The exclusionary rule and illegally obtained evidence
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It ensures that people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause.
The exclusionary rule is a legal concept that prevents evidence obtained through unconstitutional means, such as unreasonable searches and seizures, from being used in court. This rule acts as a check on police powers and aims to deter police misconduct by ensuring that illegally obtained evidence cannot benefit the prosecution. The exclusionary rule also applies to evidence derived from unconstitutional searches, such as confessions made by the defendant as a result of illegally obtained evidence.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is a related legal concept. This doctrine states that evidence obtained as an indirect result of illegal state action is also inadmissible. For example, if a defendant is arrested illegally, any fingerprints taken while they were in custody are considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and cannot be used as evidence.
The exclusionary rule also protects against violations of the Fifth Amendment, which includes the right to protection against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel. Most states have their own exclusionary remedies for illegally obtained evidence, and the rule has been pivotal in reinforcing the Fourth Amendment's protections.
While the exclusionary rule is a powerful tool, it is not without its limitations. For example, it does not apply to evidence obtained by private persons, only to government officials. Additionally, illegally obtained evidence may be admissible to attack the defendant's credibility on cross-examination.
Texas' Constitutional Amendment Elections: When and Why?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A search under the Fourth Amendment occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes electronic surveillance and strip searches.
The exclusionary rule ensures that the prosecution cannot use illegally obtained evidence in court. This rule acts as a check on police powers and aims to deter law enforcement officers from conducting illegal searches and seizures.
