Do Now:
Grab today’s Agenda (4:7).
What does the Fourth Amendment say about search and seizure? Be
specific!
Search and Seizure
• Historically
• Reasonable Search and Seizure
• Exclusionary Rule
Historically
Colonial America
• In colonial America, the English rulers were not required to obtain
search warrants targeted at specific individuals or locations.
• Beginning in 1751, English soldiers and customs officers would write
broad writs of assistance that would allow them to freely search for
any sort of contraband. (The English imposed heavy taxes on
colonists, and many American merchants resorted to smuggling to
circumvent the tax laws.)
• While the writs of assistance were intended to discourage or
eliminate smuggling, it served to further alienate the colonists from
the English government.
Historically
Fourth Amendment
• The Framers of the Constitution, well aware of the American public’s
fear of government tyranny, constructed the Fourth Amendment that
guarantees protection for all citizens against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
• In addition, each state has adopted similar protections in their own
Constitutions.
• The due process clause of the 14th Amendment strengthens the
Fourth Amendment and gives citizens even greater protection from
illegal searches and seizures.
Historically
Protections
• The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.
• It is difficult to define what constitutes a reasonable search or seizure, but the
most important criterion is probable cause.
• Probable cause requires police agencies to have reasonable suspicion that a person or
place is involved in illegal activities.
• Identifying probable cause gives police the authority to search and investigate suspicious
persons or places, while still protecting the rights of citizens.
• Police departments are not able to search a person or property based solely on an
unfounded hunch or suspicion.
Historically
Protections
• To further protect citizens against abuses, police are generally required to obtain
a warrant prior to conducting a search or seizure in a home or business.
• A warrant is a legal document, signed by a judge, authorizing authorities to conduct a
lawful search or seizure.
• A judge will only issue a warrant if the police are able to prove probable cause.
• A warrant must identify a specific person or place that may be searched. It will also dictate
exactly what the police are allowed to look for and the process they can follow when
searching. Police must search in likely places and are prohibited from causing undue injury
to occupants, other people, or the property itself.
Reasonable Search and Seizure
Katz v. United States (1967) - #1
• Yes.
• The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to
Fourth Amendment protection for his
conversations and that a physical intrusion
into the area he occupied was necessary to
bring the Amendment into play.
• “The Fourth Amendment protects people,
not places.”
Bottom Line:
Reasonable Search and Seizure
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) - #2
• Yes and yes.
• The Court had to balance the student’s expectation of privacy
and the school’s interest in maintaining order and discipline.
States have a duty to provide a safe school environment.
Schools are required to have a “reasonable suspicion” to
perform a search.
• Her possession of any cigarettes was relevant to whether or not
she was being truthful, and since she had been caught in the
bathroom and taken directly to the office, it was reasonable to
assume she had the cigarettes in her purse.
• Thus, the vice-principal had reasonable cause to suspect a
school rule had been broken, and more than just a “hunch” to
search the purse.
• When the vice-principal was searching for the cigarettes, the
drug-related evidence was in plain view. Plain view is an
exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth
Amendment.
• Thus, the reasonable search for cigarettes led to some of the
drug related material being discovered.
Bottom Line:
Reasonable Search and Seizure
Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) - #3
• No.
• The reasonableness of a search is judged by
“balancing the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth
Amendment interests against the promotion of
legitimate governmental interests.”
• In the case of high school athletes who are under
State supervision during school hours, they are
subject to greater control than over free adults.
• The privacy interests compromised by urine samples
are negligible since the conditions of collection are
similar to public restrooms, and the results are
viewed only by limited authorities.
• Furthermore, the governmental concern over the
safety of minors under their supervision overrides
the minimal, if any, intrusion in student-athletes’
privacy.
Bottom Line:
Reasonable Search and Seizure
United States v. Jones (2012) - #4
• Yes.
• The Court held that the installation of a GPS
tracking device on Jones’ vehicle, without a
warrant, constituted an unlawful search
under the Fourth Amendment.
• The Court rejected the government’s
argument that there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy in a person’s
movement on public thoroughfares and
emphasized that the Fourth Amendment
provided some protection for trespass onto
personal property.
Bottom Line:
Exclusionary Rule
Problem
• Although the Fourth Amendment protects citizens against
unreasonable searches, it does not establish consequences if the
police do not acquire a warrant prior to the search.
• Furthermore, it does not implicitly prohibit law enforcement from
gathering evidence that is not directly related to the warrant.
Exclusionary Rule
Weeks v. United States (1914) - #5
• Yes.
• To allow private documents to be seized and
then held as evidence against citizens would
have meant that the protection of the
Fourth Amendment declaring the right to
be secure against such searches and
seizures would be of no value whatsoever.
• The Court established what eventually
became known as the “exclusionary rule” –
any evidence illegally obtained from the
defendant cannot be used against the
defendant.
Bottom Line:
Exclusionary Rule
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) - #6
• No.
• To permit derivatives would encourage
police to circumvent the fourth
Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence
was held tainted and inadmissible.
• This precedent later became known as the
“fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” and is
an extension of the exclusionary rule.
Bottom Line:
Exclusionary Rule
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - #7
• 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.
Bottom Line:
Exclusionary Rule
United States v. Leon (1984) - #8
• Yes.
• The Court held that evidence seized on the
basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant
could be introduced at trial.
• The exclusionary rule is not a right but a
remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal
police conduct.
Bottom Line:
Conclusion
• Although well intentioned, the Fourth Amendment is vague and
ambiguous. The Framers were explicit in their desire to protect the
rights of citizens, but they did not provide a clear framework for what
is considered “reasonable” search or seizure.
• Police procedure revealed inconsistencies and raised many questions,
but the Supreme Court did not play a major role in interpreting the
Fourth Amendment until the late 20th century.
• The exclusionary rule was established as a guideline for courts to
determine the admissibility of evidence. The rule states that
evidence that is not obtained within the scope of the Fourth
Amendment cannot be used as evidence.