Mediaboss Marketing

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

Visit link:
Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica

Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search-and-seizure law. This article covers basic issues you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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."

The search-and-seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:

The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts generally use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy), and most peopleincluding judgeswould consider that expectation to be objectively reasonable. Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom would be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.

On the other hand, if an officer stops a car and, when talking to the driver, happens to notice a weapon on the passenger seat, there's been no search under the Fourth Amendment. That's because, even if the driver somehow considered the passenger seat to be a private place, society isn't willing to extend privacy protections to that particular location. In other words, there's no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the gun because it was in plain view.

A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head. The Court held that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 (2000).)

The exclusionary rule. If, upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of it cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution. This principle, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the exclusionary rule.

To this day, many commentators criticize the exclusionary rule on the ground that it unfairly "lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred." But the rule's supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police are less likely to conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant. (There are, however, exceptions to the exclusionary rulefor one, see Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception.)

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Not only is evidence that's the product of an illegal search generally inadmissible in court, but so too is additional evidence that derived from the initial evidence. This principle is colorfully known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "tree" is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the "fruit" is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are typically inadmissible at trial. (For more, see Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.)

Example: Improperly Seized Evidence

Officer Wiley arrests Hy Lowe for selling phony telephone cards. A judge rules that Officer Wiley illegally entered Lowe's home and improperly seized a map showing the location where Lowe hid the phone cards. Officer Wiley then found the phone cards in that location. Because Officer Wiley obtained the map through an illegal search, it and the phone cards are inadmissible. The phone cards are the fruit of the unlawful search.

Not always end of story. Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Not true. If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. Also, the illegally-seized evidence can generally be considered by a judge when deciding on an appropriate sentence following conviction and admitted in civil and deportation cases. In some circumstances, a prosecutor can use such evidence to impeach (attack the credibility of) a defendant who testifies at trial.

To learn more about search-and-seizure law, get The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman (Nolo). If you might need to talk to a criminal defense attorney, or want to know how the law may differ slightly in your state, you can turn to Nolo's trusted Lawyer Directory to find a lawyer near you.

Continue reading here:
When Can't the Fourth Amendment Protect My Privacy? | Nolo

The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses against unreasonable searches, and is an important right. Americans want to feel safe in their homes and do not want police constantly involved in their daily lives. On the other hand, Americans want to be safe from crime and terrorism. There is a difficult and controversial balance between these two perspectives, and there has been since this nation was founded. Let us look at three important cases dealing with Fourth Amendment issues.

In the 1961 case, Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court decided that any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment would be deemed inadmissible in court. Dollree Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect. Police knocked at her door, but she did not answer. Eventually, police forced their way in. Once they breached the doorway, Dollree demanded to see their warrant. She placed the warrant in her bra. The warrant was destroyed when the police tried to retrieve it. The police found pornography in the home (a crime in that archaic time) and charged Mapp with possession of lewd material. The prosecuting attorney did not have the warrant to present as evidence. Ohio convicted Mapp, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ruled any evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible.

The 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States is another major fourth amendment case. Charles Katz sent illegal betting wagers through a public pay phone booth. The FBI recorded his calls, and the recordings were used as evidence against him in trial. The Supreme Court decided that this evidence was inadmissible as Katz believed he has a reasonable expectation of privacy when making the phone calls. The Supreme Court dictated that any conversation made with a reasonable expectation of privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment and that wiretapping constitutes a search.

Terry v. Ohio is a 1968 Supreme Court decision upholding stop-and-frisk policing. John Terry and two other men were walking around suspiciously in front of a building. A police officer approached them and found a pistol in Terrys pocket. He ordered the three men inside the building and patted them down. He found a weapon on one of the other men. Terry and his armed friend were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The Supreme Court ruled that Terrys search was reasonable and justified by the need to protect the police and others nearby. Since this case, there have been many other cases addressing the issue of when it is okay for an officer to search a suspect.

The Fourth Amendment is an important protection. If you feel your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, you need effective legal representation. Many cases hinge on Fourth Amendment rights being handled properly. The police have a duty to behave by the standards set by the constitution, but sometimes they do not always follow the rules. The De Bruin Law Firm has experience helping people in difficult situations. Let us help you with your case, contact Greenville Defense Attorney Aaron De Bruin about your case today.

View original post here:
Landmark Fourth Amendment Cases | Criminal Defense Attorney

Courts are frequently called upon to apply the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to police procedures. Marylands Court of Special Appeals this week reviewed whether the use of fare inspections on a light rail train violated the Fourth Amendment in a case called Kenneth Carter v. State of Maryland.

The opinion indicates that Maryland Transit Authority police gathered on the platform of a Baltimore light rail station, for the purpose of doing a fare inspection to see if passengers had paid for their fare. There was no evidence of any signs posted in the stations that such fare sweeps may be done. Failure to pay the fare is a crime subject to a $50 fine. When the train pulled into the station, an officer entered each train and announced that each passenger had to show their ticket proving they had paid the fare.

Carter approached an officer and admitted he had no ticket, and was directed to another officer on the platform who obtained his identification. A record check showed a possible warrant outstanding for Carter, who then tried to flee and was tackled. During the melee the police found that Carter had a gun, and it turned out he was a convicted felon. At trial, defendants motion to suppress evidence because of an illegal detention was denied, and he was convicted of firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

The appellate Court noted that in determining whether an investigatory detention by police had occurred, it would look at such factors as the use or show of force or authority by the police so that a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave or refuse to answer questions. Here, the appellate Court found that by announcing to all passengers that they could not leave the train until producing proof of fare payment, Carter had in fact been detained even before he admitted he had no ticket.

Since one of the officers at trial admitted that they used fare checks as a means of enforcing outstanding warrants, the appellate Court declared this police misconduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted, and the convictions were reversed.

Thomas Patrick Ryan is a partner in the Rockville law firm of McCarthy Wilson, which specializes in civil litigation.

Post Views: 228

See more here:
Fare Inspections and the Fourth Amendment - Montgomery County Sentinel

U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may forcibly and warrantlessly carry out blood draws on unconscious drivers suspected of drunk driving.

The Courts 5-4 decision in Mitchell v. State of Wisconsin found that an unconscious driver suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol constitutes an emergency situation that allows police to ignore the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement and draw blood from that suspect without consent or a warrant, regardless of whether there is an opportunity to obtain a warrant.

In an amicus brief filed in the case, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had argued that implied consent laws, which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws, should not be used as a means of allowing police to bypass fundamental Fourth Amendment protections for privacy and bodily integrity.

All of those freedoms we cherish the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will, said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.

What this ruling makes clear is that our so-called Fourth Amendment rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the governments ongoing power grabs.

In May 2013, the Sheboygan, WI, police received a call that Gerald Mitchell was in distress. Mitchell had driven his van to the shore of Lake Michigan and consumed 40 pills and a mixture of vodka and soda.

Police found Mitchell walking unsteadily along the lake, although his van was parked elsewhere. Mitchell was given a roadside sobriety test, which showed that he had a blood-alcohol concentration of .24. He was taken into custody and driven to the police station where he was placed in a holding cell.

While in the cell, Mitchell began to fall asleep or pass out, although he could be roused if stimulated.

Wanting another test of Mitchells blood-alcohol level but unsure if Mitchell could cooperate with a breath test, police took Mitchell to a hospital to have his blood drawn and tested.

Mitchell was unconscious upon arriving at the hospital. Police then read an unconscious Mitchell his rights under Wisconsins implied consent law, including his right to refuse to submit to a blood or breath test, and then proceeded to have a hospital technician forcibly draw his blood.

Upon being prosecuted for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Mitchell moved to suppress the blood test results on the ground that his blood was taken without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

After losing in the Wisconsin state courts, Mitchell appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the forced blood draws violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Although the Supreme Court has previously ruled that forced, warrantless blood draws are unconstitutional, it justified the blood draw in Mitchell as dependent on exigent circumstances. Twenty-eight states have laws similar to Wisconsins implied consent law.

The Supreme Courts opinion and The Rutherford Institutes amicus brief in Mitchell v. State of Wisconsin are available at http://www.rutherford.org. Affiliate attorneys D. Alicia Hickok, Mark Taticchi, D. Alexander Harrell, and Matthew C. Sapp of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in Philadelphia and Dallas assisted The Rutherford Institute and CATO in presenting its arguments.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.

Read the original here:
SCOTUS rules in favor of warrantless blood draw - Overton County News