Searches and Seizures
By: Austin/ Chandler Fann and
Steven Dudley
Amendment I
• Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
Amendment IV
• 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.
Amendment XIV
• Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment V
• No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
Wolf v. Colorado
• Facts of Case:
• The plaintiff, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted for conspiracy to perform
criminal abortions.The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a number of
convictions in which evidence was admitted that would have been
inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in a
federal court.
• Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
• Argued:
• Tuesday, October 19, 1948
• Decided:
• Monday, June 27, 1949
• Vinson Court (1946-1949)
Wolf v. Colorado
• The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject
criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally
obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all
cases. The Court reasoned that while the exclusion of evidence may
have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other
methods could be equally effective and would not fall below the
minimal standards assured by the Due Process Clause. Civil
remedies, such as "the internal discipline of the police, under the
eyes of an alert public opinion," were sufficient.
• Decision: 6 votes for Wolf, 3 votes against.
• Legal Provision: 14th Amendment
Mapp v. Ohio
• Facts of the Case:
• Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after
an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She
appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
• Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?
(May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth
Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)
• Argued:
• Wednesday, March 29, 1961
• Decided:
• Monday, June 19, 1961
• Warren Court (1958-1962)
Mapp v. Ohio
• The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue
and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches
and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the
Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."
Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally
obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and
controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of
excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all
levels of the government. The decision launched the
Court on a troubled course of determining how and
when to apply the exclusionary rule.
• Decision: 6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Roe v. Wade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Facts of the Case:
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited
abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard
arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the
constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired
from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new
opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and
Thurgood Marshall.
Question:
Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Argued:
Monday, December 13, 1971
Reargued:
Wednesday, October 11, 1972
Decided:
Monday, January 22, 1973
Issues:
Privacy, Abortion, Including Contraceptives
Burger Court (1972-1975)
Roe v. Wade
• The Court held that a woman's right to an
abortion fell within the right to privacy
(recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected
by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision
gave a woman total autonomy over the
pregnancy during the first trimester and defined
different levels of state interest for the second
and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46
states were affected by the Court's ruling.
• Decision: 7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process
Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dow Chemical Company denied the Environmental Protection Agency a follow-up on-site
inspection of its facilities in Midland, Michigan. In response, EPA conducted an unannounced aerial
inspection. When Dow became aware EPA had taken aerial photographs of its facilities, it filed suit
in District Court alleging that EPA conducted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. The District Court ruled that the aerial inspection violated Dow's "expectation of
privacy" from searches. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the ruling
on the ground that Dow only expected pivacy with respect to its indoor property.
Does the Fourth Amendment require government inspectors to obtain warrants before conducting
aerial searches of outdoor business facilities?
Argued:
Tuesday, December 10, 1985
Decided:
Monday, May 19, 1986
Issues:
Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure
Burger Court (1981-1986)
Dow Chemical v. U.S.
• No. Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion for a 5-4 court. The
Court maintained that the EPA's statutory jurisdiction "carries with
it all the modes of inquiry and investigation traditionally employed
or useful to execute the authority granted." Fourth Amendment
protection involves the invasion of areas where intimate activities
occur, whereas "the open areas of an industrial complex are more
comparable to an 'open field' in which an individual may not
legitimately demand privacy." The fact that EPA could take aerial
photographs of the facilities from public airspace with the standard
photographic equipment employed by mapmakers confirmed that
the area was not subject to strict protection from observation.
• Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Terry v. Ohio
• Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes
policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stickup." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found
weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a
concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.
• Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation
of the Fourth Amendment?
• Argued:
• Tuesday, December 12, 1967
• Decided:
• Monday, June 10, 1968
• Issues:
• Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure
Terry v. Ohio
• The Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons
seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting
to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court
found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a
reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing
[Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's
safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court
found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and
designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.
• Decision: 1 vote for Terry, 8 against
• Legal Provisions: 14th Amendment
Board of Education v. Earls
• The Court held that, because the policy reasonably serves the
School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug
use among its students, it is constitutional. The Court reasoned that
the Board of Education's general regulation of extracurricular
activities diminished the expectation of privacy among students and
that the Board's method of obtaining urine samples and
maintaining test results was minimally intrusive on the students'
limited privacy interest. "Within the limits of the Fourth
Amendment, local school boards must assess the desirability of
drug testing schoolchildren. In upholding the constitutionality of
the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom. Rather, we hold
only that Tecumseh's Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the
School District's important interest in preventing and deterring drug
use among its schoolchildren," wrote Justice Thomas.
• Decision: 5 votes for Board of Education, 4 vote(s) against
• Legal Provisions: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Board of Education v. Earls
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Facts of the Case:
The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma School District
(School District) requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for
drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh High School students and
their parents brought suit, alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The District
Court granted the School District summary judgment. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that
the policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court concluded that before imposing a
suspicionless drug-testing program a school must demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse
problem among a sufficient number of those tested, such that testing that group will actually
redress its drug problem, which the School District had failed to demonstrate.
Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all students who participate in
competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing, consistent with the Fourth
Amendment?
Argued:
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
Decided:
Thursday, June 27, 2002
Issues:
Privacy, Miscellaneous
•
Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)
•
Timeline
Wolf v. Colorado
June 27, 1949
Mapp v. Ohio
June 19, 1961
Terry v. Ohio
June 10, 1968
Roe v. Wade
January 22, 1973
Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S.
May 19, 1986
Board of Education v. Earls
June 27, 2002
Political Cartoon
Political Cartoon
Video!