4th amendment case law
Terry v. Ohio
it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.
Florida v J.L.
determined that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk someone based solely on an anonymous tip that describes a person's location and appearance, but does not furnish information as to any illegal conduct.
New Jersey v. TLO
while the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials, they may conduct reasonable warrantless searches of students under their authority notwithstanding the probable cause standard that would normally apply to searches under the Fourth Amendment
Safford v. Redding
a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."
Oliver v. US
Individuals cannot legitimately expect privacy for activities conducted out in the open except in the area immediately surrounding their house.
Hester v. US
established the open field doctrine: The protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects," does not extend to open fields.
Weeks v. US
Established exclusionary rule, evidence gotten without a warrant isn't admissable in a federal court
Mapp v. Ohio
Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court)
US v. Leon
The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. Good faith exception
Nix v. Williams
created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.
Katz v. US
"The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,"
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 unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play.
Kyllo v. US
the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.
US v Place
it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for a trained police dog to sniff of a person's luggage or property in a public place.
US v. Warshak
A subscriber enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of emails that are stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial ISP, and the government may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber's emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
Carroll v. US
police may stop and search a potentially mobile motor vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law. known as the automobile exception.
Tinker v. Des Moines
Students have the right to symbolic speech at school as long as it is not disruptive
Vernonia School District v. Acton
Random drug testing of athletes does not violate the search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment
Maryland v King
conducting a DNA swab test as a part of the arrest procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves a legitimate state interest and is not so invasive so as to require a warrant
Missouri v. McNeely
the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches applies to blood alcohol tests unless specific exigent circumstances exist.
Gideon v. Wainwright (not a 4th amendment but still know)
the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own.
Fernandez v. California
Consent searches are permissible warrantless searches and are clearly reasonable when the consent comes from the sole occupant of the premises.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
It is unnecessary to prove that the person who gave consent knew that he had the right to refuse. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not require a knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.
Georgia v. Randolph
without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects
Board of Pottawatomie v. Earls
it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for public schools to conduct mandatory drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities.
US v. Santana
by standing on her porch when the officers arrived, Santana was "not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy."
US v Watson
postal inspectors have the power to execute an arrest without a warrant when there is probable cause.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
the warrant authorizing the seizure of Coolidge's automobile was invalid because it was not issued by a "neutral and detatched magistrate."
Ciraolo v. California
aerial observation of a person's backyard by police, even if done without a search warrant, does not violate the Fourth Amendment
Brigham City v. Stuart
police may enter a building without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an occupant is "seriously injured or threatened with such injury."
Hudson v. Michigan
evidence need not be excluded when police violate the "knock-and-announce" rule.
Wolf v. Colorado
while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.
Irvine v. California
"the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." The evidence obtained from the microphone did not have to be excluded from Irvine's trial, and was admitted consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment
Florida v. Jardines
front porch of a home is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Entering a person's porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public
Riley v. California
some warrantless searches of cell phones might be permitted in an emergency: when the government's interests are so compelling that a search would be reasonable.
Carpenter v US
the Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests, but also reasonable expectations of privacy. Expectations of privacy in this age of digital data do not fit neatly into existing precedents, but tracking person's movements and location through extensive cell-site records is far more intrusive than the precedents might have anticipated.
Kentucky v King
"The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment,"
Bell v. Itawamba County School Board
In this 2012 decision, a divided federal appeals court ruled that Mississippi school officials did not violate the First Amendment when they punished a high school student for posting a rap recording on Facebook and YouTube that criticized two Caucasian high school football coaches for allegedly sexually inappropriate comments toward African-American female students.