5th Amendment

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights.United States Constitution

Bill of Rights

First Amendment

Second Amendment

Third Amendment

Fourth Amendment

Fifth Amendment

Sixth Amendment

Seventh Amendment

Eighth Amendment

Ninth Amendment

Tenth Amendment

Amendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant) which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution.

Contents [hide]

1 Text

2 Summary

3 Reasonable expectation of privacy

4 Searches and seizures without warrants

5 Conditions of searches

6 Exclusionary rule

7 Important cases

8 References

[edit]

Text

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.

[edit]

Summary

The fourth amendment can be broken down into two distinct parts. The first part provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, although historically there have been myriad ways in which unreasonable searches were remedied. Modern jurisprudence has afforded the exclusionary rule to ensure that evidence improperly collected is excluded from trial. This gives law enforcement officers an incentive to respect the amendment.

The second part of the amendment provides for the proper issue of warrants. When warrants are issued, there must be probable cause. Probable cause is tested using the "totality of circumstances" test as defined in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

[edit]

Reasonable expectation of privacy

Not every incident where an officer ascertains information is considered a "search." An officer who views something which is publicly viewable (for instance, by looking through the window of a house from the street) is not conducting a "search" of the house. In Katz v. United States, 386 U.S. 954 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that there is no search unless an individual has an "expectation of privacy" and the expectation is "reasonable"--that is, it is one that society is prepared to recognize. So, for example, there is generally no search when officers look through garbage because there is no expectation that garbage is private (see California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)). Similarly, there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials (although Congress has placed statutory restrictions on such monitoring). This doctrine sometimes leads to somewhat unexpected results; in Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that there was no expectation of privacy (and thus no search) where officers hovered in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house and conducted surveillance.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that there can be no expectation of privacy in illegal activity. Therefore, investigations that reveal only illegal activity (such as some use of drug sniffing dogs) are not searches.

[edit]

Searches and seizures without warrants

A warrant is not necessary for a search or seizure under certain circumstances. Officers may search and seize objects that are in "plain view." Before the search and seizure, however, the officers must have probable cause to believe that the objects are contraband.

Similarly, "open fields"--pastures, open water, woods and other such areas--may be searched without warrant, on the basis that the individuals conducting activities therein had no reasonable expectations of privacy. Contrary to its apparent meaning, the "open fields" doctrine has been expanded to include almost any open space other than the land immediately surrounding a domicile (for instance, in Oliver v. United States 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path several hundred yards, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place). See also: open fields doctrine.

There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement-for instance, if an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may destroy evidence, he might be permitted to seize the evidence without a warrant.

The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.

Under common law, a police officer could arrest an individual (arrests constitute seizures, at least for the purpose