Constitutional
Criminal Procedure
Dr. Charles Feer
Criminal Justice Instructor
Understanding the 4th Amendment

History and Text of the Fourth Amendment


During colonial times, British customs agents in America
were issued general warrants known as “writs of assistance,”
which the agents used to search whenever, wherever and
whomever they pleased.
When the colonist won their independence, they added the
Fourth Amendment in order to prevent the kinds of abuses
perpetrated with the writs of assistance.
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

The Three Covered Activities

To establish guidelines for applying the Fourth Amendment
and its exclusionary and civil liability rules the court found it
necessary to compose its own legal definitions, which
describe three forms of activity.

The Fourth Amendment covers three distinct
forms of investigative actions—searches,
seizures of people, and seizures of property.

The Fourth Amendment protects three different
interests—privacy, liberty and possession.
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

The Three Covered Activities (Continued)

1. “Search” Defined and Illustrated
For Fourth Amendment purposes, a “search” is an official
infringement of a legitimate expectation of privacy.
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment
 The Three
(Continued)
Covered Activities
2. “Seizure of the Person” Defined and Illustrated

A “seizure of the person” interferes with an
individual’s liberty interest. It occurs when
intentional police conduct reasonably indicates that
the person must comply with police commands.

“…a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning
of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of
the circumstances surrounding the incident, a
reasonable person would have believed that he
was not free to leave.” (Mendenhall v. US)
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

The Three Covered Activities (Continued)
3. “Seizure of Property” Defined and Illustrated

A “seizure of property” requires a meaningful
interference by governmental officials with a
person’s legitimate right to possess that
property.
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

The Warrant Clause




The second half of the Fourth
Amendment is often called “the
warrant clause.”
The Congress and state legislatures
have enacted statutes authorizing
specific categories of search
warrants to be issued by judges.
Typically, a warrant can be issued
for stolen or embezzled property,
for contraband or evidence of a
crime, and for evidence tending to
establish the identity of a criminal.
Related Case Law: NY Tel. Co. v.
US
(Searches and seizures without a warrant are presumed unreasonable and must be justified by standard exception.)
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Warrantless Searches and Seizures




The Constitution does not forbid all searches and seizures,
only unreasonable searches and seizures.
A search or seizure not authorized by warrant must come
within one of the recognized exceptions.
“Exceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number
and carefully delineated, and the police bear a heavy burden
when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might
justify warrantless searches or arrests.” (Welsh v.
Wisconsin)
Other Related Cases: Elkins v. US, and Katz v. US
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule



The Fourth Amendment does not say what consequence
should happen if a person’s right against unreasonable
search and seizure is violated.
The exclusionary rule created by the Supreme Court in
Weeks v. US had not been authorized by any congressional
legislation.
The Supreme Court decided the consequence should be
exclusion of resulting evidence derived from the violation
from the prosecution case as proof of defendant’s guilt.
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)



The objective of the exclusionary rule, according to the
Fourth Amendment, is to prevent officers from willfully
engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures.
The exclusionary rule only applied to federal prosecutions;
however, in the case of Wolf v. Colorado, the justices flirted
with the idea of extending it to the states.
Other Related Cases: Katz v. US, Wolf v. Colorado, Janis v.
US, and Mapp v. Ohio
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The “Standing” Doctrine

“Fourth Amendment rights are personal in nature,
and we think that definition of those rights is more
properly placed within the purview of substantive
Fourth Amendment law than within that of
standing.” (Rakas v. Illinois)

The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule cannot
be invoked by a person whose own, legitimate
rights were not implicated by the search or seizure.

Related Case Law: Rakas v. Illinois and Rawlings
v. Kentucky
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)

The “Objective Justification” Doctrine

A search or seizure that is objectively reasonable
does not violate the Fourth Amendment, without
regard to an officer’s subjective motive, intent or
analysis.

The doctrine of objective justification also applied
in the civil liability context.

Related Case Law: Whren v. US and Devenpeck v.
Alford
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)

The “Attenuated Taint” Doctrine

Under the doctrine of “attenuated taint,” evidence
may be admissible even though it might not have
been obtained but for an earlier illegality, provided
that intervening acts have broken the chain of direct
causation.
 “We need not hold that all evidence is “fruit of the
poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have
come to light but for the illegal actions of the…
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)

…police. Rather, the more apt question in such a
case is whether, granting establishment of the
primary illegality, the evidence to which instant
objection is made has been come at by exploitation
of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently
distinguishable as to be purged of the primary
taint.” (Wong Sun v. US)
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)


The “Independent Source” Doctrine

The exclusionary rule does not apply, despite an
unreasonable search or seizure based on one ground,
if there was a separate, untainted source of the same
evidence.

Related Case Law: Murray v. US
The “Inevitable Discovery” Doctrine

A search or seizure error does not necessitate
suppression of evidence that would have been
discovered inevitably through lawful means.
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)

The “Good Faith” Doctrine
 The Supreme Court has applied the “good faith”
exception to permit the introduction of evidence in
spite of police error in the following kinds of cases:

Search Warrants

Arrest Warrants

Unconstitutional Statutes

Misidentification

Consent
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)


Objectively-reasonable mistakes made in good faith
may permit evidence to survive a suppression
motion in limited kinds of situations.
“The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule
necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in
wilful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which
has deprived the defendant of some right. Where
the official action was pursued in complete good
faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much
of its force.” (Michigan v. Tucker)
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)

Permissible Auxiliary Uses


Evidence that is inadmissible in the prosecution case-inchief under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule
may be used for impeachment and other purposes.
Limiting the exclusionary rule to the prosecution casein-chief, the court has permitted suppressible evidence to
be admitted for purposes other than to prove guilt, and in
other proceedings:

Impeachment/Rebuttal

Sentencing
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)





Parole/Probation Revocation Hearings
Grand Jury Proceedings
Deportation Proceedings
If evidence is ruled inadmissible on grounds that it is the
poisoned fruit of an unlawful search or seizure, that ruling
only applies to the prosecution case-in-chief and does not
make the evidence inadmissible to rebut the defendant’s
inconsistent testimony, or for other purposes.
Related Case Law: Walder v. US
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)

Conduct by Private Parties

The independent actions of private individuals or
groups are not subject to the Fourth Amendment,
and so the exclusionary rule does not apply to
evidence obtained by private parties not acting as
government agents.

Related Case Law: Walter v. US, Jacobsen v. US,
and Burdeau v. McDowell
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
(Continued)

Conduct by Foreign Officials

Because the Fourth Amendment has no application to
foreign officers in foreign countries, the exclusionary
rule does not apply to evidence obtained by foreign
officers and turned over to US agents.

Nor does it extend to searches and seizures conducted
outside the US against citizens of a foreign country,
even by US agents.

Related Case Law: Verdugo-Urquidez v. US
Investigative Constitutional Law
Understanding the 4th Amendment

Civil Rights Lawsuits for Fourth
Amendment Violations



Fourth Amendment violations may not only mean the
suppression of resulting evidence but may also subject
officers and their agencies to civil liability for both
damages and attorney’s fees.
Officers and their agencies may be liable in money
damages for violating constitutional rights under color
of authority, where the search or seizure cannot be
justified, or is carried out in an unreasonable manner.
Related Case Law: City of Riverside v. Rivera
Investigative Constitutional Law