4th Amendment
Timothy Bian, Myris Kramsch, Mazen Elhosseiny, Daniel Alday, John Scott, Kartik Raju
“Each Man’s Home is His Castle”
Secure in their persons, houses, and
effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures. Warrants only upon
probable cause, particularly describing
the place to be searched, and items to
be seized.
A response to Tyranny
Prevents unreasonable search and
seizure practiced proliferate by the
British government.
Drafted by James Madison to sate
anti-federalist need for defined
government restrictions.
Weeks vs U.S. (1914)
the threat of null and void
Kansa Police entered`1into
Fremont Weeks’ house and
gathered evidence to convict
him for transporti-ng lottery
tickets.
The Marshals trespassed and
obtained evidence without a
warrant.
Does this normalized practice violate the
very body of the Fourth Amendment?
hint: it does
The court understands it could render
the Amendment null and void.
Unanimous decision that this directly
violates the 4th Amendment.
The sanctity of the 4th upheld.
Mapp vs Ohio (1961)
how pornography changed the constitution
Dollree Mapp was searched and
arrested for illegal gambling apparatus.
Mapp was found not guilty.
However, during the search,
pornographic magazines were found
and Mapp was arrested and convicted.
Were the porno mags protected by the
First Amendment?
Can evidence unrelated to the warrant
be seized to charge in a criminal
proceeding?
The Exclusionary Rule
The court ruled in favor of Mapp.
The court finds the materials used
to be illegally obtained.
All illegally obtained materials are
inadmissible in court.
Katz vs U.S. (1967)
no loopholes around the law
A Little History…
Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) states that wiretapping is legal
in investigations.
Supreme Court rules eavesdropping legal unless it
violates “unreasonable searches and seizures”.
Charles Katz is charged with conducting
illegal gambling operations over state lines.
Federal agents placed warrantless wiretaps
on public phone booth that he used.
Congress pass Federal Communications
Act.
Silverman v. U.S. (1961) refines Olmstead
doctrine
Does the warrantless
wiretapping of a public
phone booth violate the
unreasonable search
and seizure clause of
the 4th Amendment ?
The Court ruled in favor of Katz:
Tapping of public phone booth is
unreasonable search in violation of 4th.
Since Katz, law enforcement must
apply for a court’s permission to use
electronic surveillance.
U.S. vs Leon (1984)
to serve with good faith
Drug surveillance case from 1981 in
Burbank, California.
Police observed homes, followed cars,
and used surveillance to acquire
warrants.
Evidence against Leon & Castillo found.
Should the evidence be upheld
since the officers acted in “good
faith?”
Evidence upheld because police relied
on search warrant authority.
authority
They acted in “good faith” believing that
the warrant was valid.
valid
Established the “good faith”
exception to the exclusionary rule
from Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
Ciraolo vs California (1986)
the cops were soaring high
Police flew over house to identify
Marijuana plants in Ciraolo’s backyard
after an anonymous tip.
Carlo Ciraolo convicted of cultivating
marijuana.
Was the unwarranted flyover of Mr.
Ciraolo’s yard a violation of his 4th
Amendment rights and privacy?
5
4
A divided court states that the
observations from the cops did not violate
the constitution.
Sets the precedent that if its
Nonintrusive, or is in public,
then its consistent with the 4th.
California vs Greenwood (1988)
When “Green” came up against the Supreme
Stracner heard rumors about
Greenwood.
She then talked to the neighborhood
garbage man.
Arrested Greenwood with arrested and
searched with a warrant.
Does the fourth amendment protect
people when they are on public property?
Trash could be “readily accessed by
other members of the public”
The fourth amendment does
not protect people when
dealing with public property
Thank You