Fourth Amendment: Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment
Overview
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Applies to searches of persons, homes, papers, and effects.
Applies to seizures of persons and property.
Historical Context: Rooted in colonial opposition to British general warrants, which allowed broad, unrestricted searches.
Analysis begins by determining if a search or seizure occurred.
If not, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.
If so, it must be determined whether the search or seizure was unreasonable.
Key Questions: Was there government action? Did it infringe on a reasonable expectation of privacy?
A search or seizure conducted without a valid warrant is generally unreasonable.
A valid warrant must be based on probable cause, issued by a neutral magistrate, and describe the place to be searched or the items to be seized.
Probable Cause: Requires sufficient facts for a reasonable person to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is located in the place to be searched.
Neutral Magistrate: A judge or official who is not biased and can make impartial decisions.
The Fourth Amendment applies only to government actions.
Actions by private citizens are not covered unless they are acting on behalf of the government (e.g., informants).
Government Actors: Includes police officers, federal agents, and other officials acting under the color of law.
Exclusionary Rule
Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court, called the exclusionary rule.
Example: If an illegal weapon is found during an unlawful search, it cannot be used as evidence.
Purpose: To deter police misconduct and uphold constitutional rights.
The outcome depends on the specific situation.
If illegally obtained evidence is crucial, the case may be dismissed.
If other lawful evidence exists, the case may proceed.
Inevitable Discovery Exception: If the evidence would have been inevitably discovered through legal means, it may still be admissible.
If nothing is found during an unlawful search, there is typically no remedy.
Civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy are possible but difficult to pursue.
Example: Study in New York found that over 90% of people stopped and searched under the NYPD stop and frisk policy were not arrested.
Qualified Immunity: Protects government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and there is no reason they would have known their conduct was illegal.
Determining if a Search Has Occurred
Old vs. New Approach
There are two approaches to determine if a search occurred: the old (physical intrusion) and the new (reasonable expectation of privacy) approach.
Some justices still use the old way.
Shift in Focus: Reflects evolving technologies and methods of surveillance.
Old Approach: Physical Intrusion
Focused on whether the government intruded upon a constitutionally protected location.
Example: Overhearing a conversation from outside an open window is not a search because there was no physical intrusion.
Example: Planting a hidden microphone inside a home is a search because it involves entering a constitutionally protected area.
Protected Locations: Includes homes, offices, and other areas where individuals have a recognized property interest.
New Approach: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Emerged due to the changing nature of searches in the modern world like surveillance and technology.
Katz v. United States
Established the modern approach.
Katz made a phone call from a public phone booth, and the government installed a device to listen to his call.
The Supreme Court criticized the old rule and proposed a new approach that focuses on whether the government intruded into an area where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Justice Harlan's concurring opinion introduced the two-fold requirement for determining when a reasonable expectation of privacy is present.
Two-Fold Requirement from Justice Harlan's Concurrence in Katz
A subjective belief in privacy.
An objective recognition of the reasonableness of this belief.
This framework now forms the basis for evaluating whether a search has occurred.
Justice Black dissented, advocating a textualist interpretation that excluded conversations from Fourth Amendment Protection.
Current Test for Determining When a Search Has Occurred
Did the individual believe that the item searched was private?
Was this belief objectively reasonable?
Analysis focuses on the objective reasonableness of the belief.
Foundational Aspects of the Fourth Amendment
Objective reasonableness is informed by foundational aspects.
Key Areas
Public Visibility/Accessibility: If something is visible, audible, or easily accessible to the public from a public place, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Example: If someone walking down the street can see or hear something, a police officer can do the same without it being a search.
Aerial Surveillance: What is visible from a public airspace is generally not protected (e.g., flying over property).
Open Fields Doctrine:
Differentiates between the house, the curtilage (area immediately around the house), and open fields.
The house and curtilage are considered private.
Open fields (even if private property) are not considered places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Three zones of privacy surrounding a home.
More focused on single-family homes than apartments.
Area between a fence and a home is generally considered curtilage.
An intrusion into an open field is not a search, while an intrusion into the curtilage is.
Factors Determining Curtilage: Proximity to the home, whether the area is enclosed, the nature of its uses, and steps taken to protect the area from observation.
Third-Party Doctrine: When someone shares information with someone else, it's no longer reasonable to expect that information to remain private.
Examples: