Gretchen Fritchie
Mentorship
Thompson
7 January 2007
The Fourth Amendment
Unreasonable Search and Seizures
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Facts of case: Without judiciary permission, federal agents installed wiretaps in the basement
of a home in which they believed a man was bootlegging. The man was then convicted with the
evidence from the wire taps
Question: Does the wiretapping of private conversations violate the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: No—a wire tap does not constitute a search and seizure under the Fourth
Amendment. Physical documents are protected, not conversations.
Katz v. United States (1967)
Facts of Case: Katz was convicted of sending betting information across state lines, based on
police wiretaps of a public phone booth.
Question: Does the Fourth Amendment require police to obtain a warrant if they want to track
a public telephone?
Decision: Yes—“The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” This decision established
that the Fourth Amendment applied wherever a person had “reasonable expectation of
privacy,” not just in the home or office.
California v. Ciraolo (1986)
Facts of Case: Police received a tip saying that a man was growing marijuana in his home. They
couldn’t get into the house to see, so they got a plane to fly them over the house. The fly-over
at 1,000 ft confirmed the tip, and Ciraolo was arrested.
Question: Does a warrantless, aerial observation of a back yard from 1,000 feet in the air
violate the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: No—the surveillance occurred “from a public vantage point where the officer was
entitled to be and which renders the activities clearly visible.” Expectations of privacy at this
altitude were unreasonable.
California v. Greenwood
Facts of Case: Police suspected Greenwood was selling drugs from his home, but because they
didn’t have enough information to get a warrant, they searched garbage bags that Greenwood
had left on the street. They uncovered evidence of drug use, and therefore got the permit that
they needed to search the house.
Question: Does the warrantless search and seizure of these garbage bags violate the Fourth
Amendment?
Decision: No—this trash is readily accessible to animals, children, snoops, and anyone else.
Police do not have to ignore something that everyone else can see easily.
Bond v. United States (2000)
Facts of Case: Border Patrol agent was feeling luggage in overhead compartments, and he felt
something that felt like a brick. Bond, the owner of the bag, gave permission to look in the
bag, and when the agent did, he found drugs. Bond believed that the agent did an illegal
search when he was feeling the bags.
Question: Does this search constitute as an unreasonable search that wouldn’t be protected by
the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: Yes—Bond possessed a privacy interest in his bag. “A bus passenger does not expect
people to be feeling around in his bags.”
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Facts of Case: A Department of Interior agent was suspicious of Kyllo growing drugs in his
house. The agent used a thermal-imaging device to scan the area. The images from this device
showed very hot areas in the house, which would make sense for someone growing drugs.
Question: does the use of this thermal-imaging device constitute as an unconstitutional search
under the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: Yes—a police may not use technology that is not available to the general public to
gather information about a protected area, such as a home, without a warrant.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Facts of Case: Terry and two other men were observed by officers walking back and forth
infront of a store. The cop that saw them believed they were about to pull a “stick up” and
stopped and frisked the two men. When he did this, he uncovered weapons.
Question: Was the search and seizure of Terry under violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: No—the officer acted on more than just a “hunch.” This case did not need reasonable
cause because of the circumstances. The cop had lots of experience with this same situation.
Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)
Facts of Case: Wardlow flew an area of Chicago carrying an opaque bag. This area was known
for heavy narcotics traffic, and the man fled when he saw police. The officers chased down
Wardlow and frisked him when they caught him.
Question: Does a person’s flight from officers in a high crime area constitute as reasonable
cause for a search and seizure?
Decision: Yes—Cop was justified in suspecting criminal behavior.
Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)
Facts of Case: Indianapolis began operating vehicle checkpoints in 1998 in an effort to interdict
drug laws. It was a less than 5 minute search, but for unreasonable cause.
Question: Are highway checkpoint programs, whose purpose is to discover and interdict
narcotics, consistent with the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: No—they are not sufficiently related to highway safety to justify an exception to the
probable cause requirements.
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)
Facts of Case: T.L.O was a 14 year old girl accused of smoking in her school bathroom. A
principle at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana.
Question: Did this search violate the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: No—probable cause is not required when students are searched by school officials. A
student’s expectation of privacy must be weighed against the school’s need to preserve a
sound learning environment.
Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
Facts of Case: school district in Oklahoma requires all students to be drug tested if they want
to take place in extra curricular activities.
Question: 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?
Decision: Yes—the policy reasonably serves the school’s best interest for preserving a sound
learning environment. Seven years earlier, the court ruled that it was consistent with the
Fourth Amendment to require all athletes to be drug tested.
The Warrant Clause
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)
Facts of Case: It is a misdemeanor under Texas law to drive without a seatbelt, or to keep your
child in the front seat unsecured. Atwater was driving her truck in Lago Vista, and her two
children were sitting in the front without seatbelts. Ultimately, she was pulled over,
handcuffed, and placed in jail on bond.
Question: Does the Fourth Amendment, either by incorporating common-law restrictions on
misdemeanor arrests or otherwise, limit a police officer's authority to arrest without warrant
for minor criminal offenses?
Decision: No—officers needed discretion in law enforcement.
Wilson v. Layne (1999)
Facts of Case: a Washington Post reporter, while accompanying police officers with a warrant
to arrest Dominic Wilson, photographed Wilson’s parents in their underclothes. The police
argued that media “ride-alongs” served a public purpose by ensuring accurate reporting of law
enforcement and publicizing anti-crime activities.
Question: Are these media “ride-alongs” consistent with the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: No—Media presence is in no way related to the task at hand. Reporters neither assist,
nor have anything to do with the warrant’s execution.
Chimel v. California (1969)
Facts of Case: local police officers went to Chimel’s home with a warrant authorizing arrest for
burglary. Upon the arrest, the officers conducted a search of Chimel’s home. Many items were
eventually used to convict Chimel.
Question: Was the unconstitutional search of Chimel’s home justified under the Fourth
Amendment as “incident to that arrest”?
Decision: No—the cops were only allowed to search right around the person being arrested, and
weren’t authorized to search through the house.
Knowles v. Iowa (1998)
Facts of Case: After stopping him for speeding, an Iowa police officer gave Knowles a citation
and conducted a search of his car without probable cause or consent. When his search turned
up a "pot pipe" and some marijuana, the officer arrested Knowles on state drug charges.
Question: Can a police officer conduct a full vehicle search even when the person driving is not
arrested?
Decision: No—Can only be conducted if the safety of the officer is at risk.
Exclusionary Rule
Weeks v. United States (1914)
Facts of Case: Police entered Weeks’ home without a warrant and seized papers that were used
to accuse him of sending lottery tickets through the mail.
Question: Did the search and seizure of Weeks’ home violate the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: Yes—exclusionary rule: prohibits illegally seized evidence from being admitted in
trial.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Facts of Case: City police officers received a tip that “a person was hiding out in the home,
who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a
large amount of bomb paraphernalia being hidden in the home.” Mapp and her daughter lived
on the top floor of the two-family house, so when the police knocked on her door and
demanded to be let in, she called her attorney and refused to let them in. Mapp’s attorney
arrived, but the officers refused to let him see his client or enter the home. The police
knocked down the door and presented what looked like a warrant. They searched the whole
house, including the child’s bedroom, and they found obscene materials that Mapp possessed.
At trial, no search warrant was ever produced or accounted for, and there was doubt to
whether or not a warrant had actually been issued.
Question: Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?
Decision: No—if materials are obtained through an unconstitutional search, they cannot be
constitutionally used in the case. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained
evidence from court at all levels of the government.