Fourth Amendment

THE 4TH
AMENDMENT: AN OVERVIEW OF
CONSTITUTIONAL SEARCHES &
SEIZURES
Fourth Amendment

Introduction
 The 1st
Amendment is the cornerstone of
American freedom
 The 4th
Amendment is unique because it
speaks not only to that desire, but also to a
need
 Abraham Maslow had a theory on human
behavior & motivation
 In his hierarchy of needs, the need for security
came after the basic needs of food, clothing and
shelter

Introduction
 The essence of being an American to many
means the right to be left alone by the
government and to be secure in their persons,
homes, papers and effects
 Many take this for granted

Introduction
 An argument in this country is whether we
have too much government
 Government controls remain important to
Americans
 It ensures that citizens can drive to and from their
destination without the fear of being pulled over
by an overly zealous police officer who simply
does not like the color of their car or skin
 This security does not mean the government
is barred from carrying out its responsibility

Introduction
 Limited government power is necessary for the
laws of the country to be enforced and the
government’s business to be carried out
 A balance is required for democracy
 Terms fundamental to understanding the 4th
Amendment
 Search- an examination of a person, place or
vehicle for contraband or evidence of a crime
 Seizure- a taking by law enforcement of other
government agent of contraband, evidence of a
crime or even a person into custody

The Importance of the 4th
Amendment
to Law Enforcement
 The 4th
Amendment governs much of what
police officers are legally allowed to do as they
serve and protect
 The 4th
Amendment has continued to evolve
constitutionally, substantively and procedurally
through common and statutory law
 The FLOWCHART at the beginning of the
chapteris great! You might want to refer
backto this in future chapters!

The Importance of the 4th
Amendment
to Law Enforcement
 The 4th
Amendment’s prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures by the
police is perhaps the most vital component of
criminal procedure because of ample
opportunities the U.S. Supreme Court has had
to set forth when any government agent may
or may not act, as well as when they have an
expectation, or duty, to do so
 Tons of case law

Who is Regulated by the 4th
Amendment?
 When the Constitution was originally drafted,
the 4th
Amendment only applied to the federal
government
 Because of the 14th
Amendment, it is now
equally applied to state governments
 Wo lf v. Co lo rado (1949)
 Established that any government agent (federal,
state or local) is regulated by the 14th
Amendment

Amendment?
 Private individuals or agencies are not
regulated by the 4th
Amendment
 Store detectives, private citizens, private
company employees are not controlled by the 4th
Amendment
 Why?
 They are not government agents, and the
Constitution was established to limit the power of
government and its agents

Amendment?
EXAMPLES
 UnitedStates v. Parker(1994)
 When a customer insured a packaged for more than
$1,000, the United Parcel Service could open their
packages without a warrant and inspect its contents
 UnitedStates v. Cleaveland(1994)
 Held permissible a warrantless search by a private electric
company employee acting on a tip that a customer was
bypassing the electric meter
 UnitedStates v. Ross (1982)
 An airline employee who inspected the defendant’s
luggage according to the FAA regulations was acting in a
government capacity and, was governed by the 4th
Amendment

Amendment?
 Sometimes a private party can be considered
to be an agent of the government
 If a private party is requested by police to go in a
house to get an item from a house - or a private
security guard agrees to search someone for the
police, this person can be considered an agent of
the government
 The Fourth Amendment would then apply

The Clauses of the 4th
Amendment
 "The rig ht o f the pe o ple to be se cure in the ir pe rso ns, ho use s,
pape rs, and e ffe cts, ag ainst unre aso nable se arche s and se iz ure s,
shallno t be vio late d, and no warrants shallissue , but upo n
pro bable cause , suppo rte d by o ath o r affirm atio n, and particularly
de scribing the place to be se arche d, and the pe rso ns o r thing s to
be se ize d. ”
 There are two clauses that are important to the
4th
Amendment in regards to search and seizure:
 Reasonableness Clause
 The Warrant Clause

Reasonableness Clause
 “The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be violated”

The Warrant Clause
 “…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”

Two Interpretations
 These two clauses have been viewed
differently by the Supreme Court
 In the 1960’s the Court used the conventional
4th
Amendment approach
 It combined the two clauses together
 It held that all searches not conducted with both a
warrant and probable cause were unreasonable,
and, therefore, unlawful

Two Interpretations
 Since the 1960’s the Court has broadened
government’s power by adopting the
reasonableness 4th
Amendment approach
 It sees the two clauses as separate, distinct and
addressing two separate situations
 This clause makes warrantless searches and seizures
valid and constitutional when they are sensible

Two Interpretations
 There are critical concepts to
understanding the 4th
Amendment which
are:
 Reasonableness
 Reasonable expectation of privacy (coming
soon)
 Probable cause

Reasonableness
 This term was one the framers of the
Constitution used to require interpretation and
application of a law intended to meet the
needs of the people, rather than providing
such rigidity that a commonsense application
could not be made – Flexibility according to
different facts!
 There are two approaches to Reasonableness
 Bright-line approach
 Case-by-Case approach

Reasonableness
 Reasonable - definition
 Sensible, rational, and justifiable
 Bright-line approach
 Reasonableness is determined by a specific rule
applying to all cases
 Case-by-case approach
 Reasonableness is determined by considering the
totality of circumstances in each individual case. It is
the most commonly used method in the U.S.
 The Constitution doesn’t provide an absolute
right to be free fromgovernment intrusion,
only unreasonable interference.

Probable Cause
 Exists when the facts and circumstances
within the officers’ knowledge and of which
they had reasonable trustworthy information
are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man
of reasonable caution in the belief that an
offense has been or is being committed.
(Brine g ar v. U. S., 1949)

Probable Cause
 Sm ith v. Unite d State s (1949)
 Defined probable cause as “The sum total of
layers of information and the synthesis of what
the police have heard, what they know, and what
they observe as trained officers. We weigh not
individual layers but the laminated total.”
 Laminated total= totality of circumstances

Probable Cause
 Totality of circumstances is the principle upon
which a number of legal assessments are
made, including probable cause.
 Not a mathematical formula
 It is looking at what does exist to assess whether
the sum total would lead a reasonable person to
believe what the officers concluded.
 The more factors present, the more likely a
finding of probable cause.

Probable Cause
 Probable cause is stronger than reasonable
suspicion.
 It can legally justify searches and arrests with
or without a warrant and requires the question:
 Would a reasonable person believe that a crime
was committed, and that the individual committed
the offense, or that the contraband or evidence is
where it is believed to be?

Probable Cause
 It must be established before a lawful search
or arrest can be made.
 Facts and evidence obtained after a search or
arrest can not be used to establish probable
cause.
 They can be used to strengthen the case if
probable cause was established before the
arrest, making the arrest legal.

Probable Cause
 If probable cause is not present, the
police can not act.
 Without probable cause, seized evidence
may be inadmissible in court.
 Also, arrests are determined illegal and officer
can be held liable for such illegality.

Sources of Probable Cause
 There are two basic categories of
probable cause:
 Observational probable cause
 Informational probable cause

Observational Probable Cause
 What the officers perceive through their
own senses of sight, hearing, smell, touch
and taste.
 Experience, training and expertise may
also lend additional creditability in
justifying probable cause.

Observational Probable Cause
 Examples/Factors that will raise suspicion and
contribute to establishing probable cause are
 Fleeing from the police
 Physical evidence may establish probable cause
 Admission made to police officers
 Presence at a crime scene or in a high crime area
 Association with other known criminals
 Furtive conduct
 Questionable, suspicious, or secretive behavior
 Will raise an officer’s suspicion
 A person’s level of nervousness can not be used by
itself, but can play a part in the totality of circumstances

Informational Probable Cause
 Most of the time officers do not personally
witness criminal activity and they rely on
information.
 Includes official sources such as roll calls,
dispatch, police bulletins and wanted notices.
 Unofficial sources such as witnesses, victims
and informants.
 Drape r v. Unite d State s (1959)
 Supreme Court at that time held that information
from a reliable informant, corroborated by the
police, upheld a determination of probable cause.

Informational Probable Cause
 Ag uilar v. Te xas (1964)
 Established a two prong test for informants
 1st
prong- tested the informants credibility
 2nd
prong- tested the informants basis of knowledge
and reliability of the information provided
 Illino is v. Gate s (1983)
 Abandoned the two prong test and replaced it
with the totality of the circumstances.
 Made the establishment of probable cause by use of
informants easier for police.
 Used now

Search and Arrest Warrants
 Government agents that have probable cause must
go before a neutral and detached magistrate (judge)
and swear under oath who and what they are
looking for and where they think it can be found.
 In determining whether probable cause for a
warrant exists, the judge must consider the totality
of the circumstances.
 Whether a reasonable person would believe what the officers
claim.
 Not every judge will sign a warrant.
 The officer may be told to come back with additional information.
 Judges today will grant telephone warrants.

Search and Arrest Warrants
 Be cause a judg e de te rm ine s whe the r pro bable
cause e xists, it re m o ve d the discre tio nary
de cisio n fro m the o ffice rs invo lve d.
 A valid warrant not only shifts the granting of
suppression of evidence to the defendant, but
also helps provide a shield against officer
liability.
 Example: Probable Cause Affidavit

Knock and Announce Rule
 Knock and Announce Rule
 The general rule is that officers must first knock
and announce their authority before breaking into
a dwelling to execute a warrant
 The intent is to prevent the occupant from responding
with force against unknown intruders – and protect
citizen rights
 How long must officers wait after knocking and
announcing?
 Unite d State s v. Banks (2003)
 15 to 20 seconds after knocking was sufficient to satisfy the 4th
Amendment requirement; Evidence could be destroyed

Special Conditions
 Officers can ask for special conditions to be attached to
a warrant
 Exigent circumstances may justice an entry by police
without announcing their presence
 May request a NO-KNOCK WARRANT
 Afraid evidence may be destroyed
 Officer safety requires it
 Hostages or victims
 Can also ask a judge to execute a warrant at night
 Nightcap warrant
 When the suspected illegal activity is occurring

The Continuum of Contacts –
See figures in textbook here!
 Continuumof Contacts- the almost limitless
variations of contracts between the public and
the police illustrating how justification for police
action increases as their reasons for thinking
criminal activity is afoot build.
 At one end of the continuum, the contract consists of
nothing more than an individual and a police officer
crossing paths.
 The police are unjustified for taking any action.
 At the extreme end of the continuum, an individual’s
conduct leads to sufficient probable cause.
 The police are justified to arrest the person; by force is necessary.

The Continuum of Contracts
 The intent of the Constitution is to prevent the
government from intruding on people’s lives
when they have done nothing wrong, however,
it is not absolute.
 When the police have lawful reason to act,
they have the right to do so.

 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that
the police have a responsibility to act to
prevent crimes and apprehend criminals.
 A police officer’s job is to decide where a
particular interaction with a suspect falls
along the continuum.
 Police must make a knowledgeable
decision in accordance with the
Constitution.

 When probable cause exists, the police
will be justified in arresting the person.
 When a person is under lawful arrest, they
may be searched and questioned.
 However, in a custodial interrogation, it requires
them to be advised of their Miranda rights.

The Law of Stop and Frisk
 The law of stop and friskis the first point
on the continuum of contracts where
police have constitutional authority to
interfere with a person’s freedom.
 Police officers should neither be expected
to ignore their reasonable suspicions nor
be denied the right to ensure their own
safety by checking for weapons.

Stop and Frisk: Basic Definitions
 Stop- a brief detention of a person based on
specific and articulable facts for the purpose of
investigating suspicious activity
 No Miranda warning is required
 Articulable facts- actions described in clear,
distinct statements
 Frisk- a reasonable, limited pat down search
for weapons for the protection of a
government agent and others
 Purpose?? Safety of officer!

 During a stop, the suspect is not free to
go just then, but will be able to shortly.
 A stop differs from an arrest, in which a
person is not free to go.
 Because this detention is not an arrest (it
is a stop), no Miranda warning need to be
given.

 The law o f sto p and frisk de als with that
tim e fram e during which o ffice rs fo llo w up
o n the ir suspicio ns but be fo re the tim e
that the re q uisite pro bable cause is
e stablishe d to justify an arre st
(Te rry v. O hio - 1968).

 What can a government agent do in
response to such suspicions?
 The law of stop and risk permits officers to act
on their suspicions rather than to turn away,
awaiting the infrequent, obvious crime to be
committed before their eyes.

The Law o f Sto p and Frisk:
Te rry v. O hio (1968)
 The landmark case on stop and frisk.
 The case established that an officerwith articulable reasonable
suspicion may conduct a brief investigatory stop, including a
pat down forweapons if the officerhas reason to suspect the
person is armed and dangerous.
 Reasonable suspicion- an experienced officer’s hunch or intuition; A
reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon
specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been
committed. (More generalized than Probable Cause)
 This search is reasonable under the 4th
Amendment and
any weapons seized may properly be introduced in
evidence against the person from whom they were
seized.

Consequences of 4th
Amendment
Violations
 An unlawful search or seizure can have
two serious consequences:
1. The evidence may be excluded from court.
2. Internal sanctions as well as civil and
criminal liability may be incurred.

The Exclusionary Rule
 Is judge-made case law rule promulgated by the
Supreme Court to prevent police or government
misconduct.
 Does not appear in Constitution!
 It prevents evidence seized in violation of a
person’s constitutional rights from being
admitted into court.
 An officer who has violated someone’s rights may be
sued, or
 Prosecuted criminally.

 The exclusionary rule is by far the most
frequently used means to address constitutional
infractions by the government in criminal cases.
 The exclusionary rule also helps:
 PRIMARY PURPOSE - Deters police misconduct by
making improperly obtained evidence inadmissible in
court
 Preserve judicial integrity by preventing judicial
agreement in denying a person’s 4th
Amendment
rights.
 Protects citizen’s constitutional right to privacy.

 This rule reflects an insistence of American
law that the ends do not justify the means.
 If they did, any means of eliciting evidence
would be permissible, including torture.
 America is being pushed to its limits with
respect to terrorism, new debate over the
means of obtaining information has arisen.
 The Supreme Court has stood firm that
unreasonable search and seizure will not be
tolerated.

 We e ks v. Unite d State s (1914)
 Supreme Court held that illegally obtain evidence
is not admissible in court and the right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures under
the 4th
Amendment applies to all invasions on the
part of the government and its employees.
 Applied to federal prosecutions
 Mapp v. O hio (1961)
 Made the exclusionary rule applicable at the state
level.

 Ro chin v. Califo rnia (1952) – Stomach pumping case
 Searches that “shock the conscience” are a violation
of due process, and any evidence so obtained, will be
inadmissible.
 Silve rtho rne Lum be r Co . v. Unite d State s (1920)
 Established the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
 Evidence obtained as a result of an earlier illegality must be
excluded from trial.
 Once the primary source (the tree) is proven to have been
obtained unlawfully, any secondary evidence derived from
it (the fruit) is also inadmissible.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary
Rule
 The exclusionary rule applies only in
criminal trials in which a constitutional
right has been violated.
 There are four exceptions to the
exclusionary rule:
1. Inevitable discovery doctrine
2. Valid independent source
3. Harmless error
4. Good faith

The Inevitable Discovery
Doctrine (“Would’ve found it”)
 Is the exception to the exclusionary rule
deeming evidence admissible even if
seized in violation of the 4th
Amendment
when it can be shown that the evidence
would have inevitably been discovered
through lawful means.
 Nix v. William s (1984)
 The court allowed evidence because an
independent search party would have eventually
discovered it.

Valid Independent Source
 If evidence that might otherwise fall victim
to the exclusionary rule, is obtained from
a valid, independent source, that evidence
can be admitted.
 Murray v. Unite d State s (1988)
 The Court held that evidence initially seen during
an illegal search, but later recovered under a valid
warrant would be admissible.

Rule
 Harmless error
 An exception to the exclusionary rule involving
the admissibility of involuntary confessions
and referring to instances in which the
preponderance of evidence suggests the
defendant’s guilt and the illegal evidence is
not critical to proving the case against the
defendant.

Rule
 Good faith
 Officers are unaware that they are acting in
violation of a suspect’s constitutional rights.
 For example: when the government is executing
arrest or search warrants.
 If the warrants are later found to be invalid, because of a
typographical error citing the wrong address or apartment
number, the evidence obtained while the warrants are
executed are still admissible because the officers were
acting in good faith.

Internal Sanctions, Civil Liability and
Criminal Liability
 Government misconduct could result in:
 Departmental discipline against the officer
 Civil lawsuits
 Criminal charges

Internal Sanctions, Civil Liability
and Criminal Liability
 America is litigious
 A tendency toward suing
 Example – Debates about airport security/TSA and
the Fourth Amendment.
 AARON TOBEY LAWSUIT: http://tsanewsblog.com/9051
 Police are an attractive target
 They have a lot of power
 They are public employees

Fourth Amendment

More Related Content

Fourth Amendment