Key Terms:• SEARCHES• SEIZURES• WARRANTS• PROBABLE CAUSE

Key Questions:• In what other areas,

besides persons, houses, papers, and effects, are we secure? How has technology changed this?

• What constitutes as an “unreasonable” search or seizure? Where do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

• What is probable cause and how is it interpreted differently?

Persons clothes, wallet, purse, pockets blood, breath everyone (citizens and noncitizens)

Houses house, apartment mobile home (maybe, depends on if it’s being used as a car) front porch (depends on the visibility and reasonable suspicion/probable

cause)

Papers diary, notebook, books Email (maybe, depends on if there is a third party) Text messages (maybe, depends on situation and context)

Effects backpack, laptop things on your person

PROTECTED PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, EFFECTS

SEARCHGovernment intrusion

into an area where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” Subjective – YOU expect

privacy (varies from person to person)

Objective – SOCIETY as a whole expects privacy (agreed consensus)

SEIZUREGovernment

interference with an individual’s possession of a property

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Private residence front porch vs. inside home

Business premise reception area vs. office vs. office desk

Trash food trash vs. sensitive documents placing trash on private vs. public property

Public places in a shopping mall vs. in a public restroom on your phone on the sidewalk vs. in a phone booth

Records stored by others/third parties Google’s monitoring of internet activities and collecting of personal data

Purse, Bag or Container see-through vs. opaque (dark, non-transparent)

Technology Consider the content of laptops/cell phones Private vs. public social media accounts

Postal mail Personal mail in envelopes vs. postcards Police’s gather of your mail/correspondence patterns

DO YOU HAVE A “REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY?”

Write YES, NO, or DEPENDS.

Be prepared to explain your reasoning.

Katz v. United States (1967)

LANDMARK SC CASE

Background Constitutional Question

Decision

Charles Katz was involved in an illegal gambling operation, using a particular payphone booth in LA to make calls.

FBI suspected him of running this operation and placed a surveillance bug on the phone to record the calls.

Katz was arrested, but claimed the bugging was an unreasonable search because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth.

Does the 4th Amendment protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures require the police

to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay

phone?

7-1 in favor of Katz

Katz had a reasonable expectation that his calls would not be heard by anyone except the intended listener.

The phone booth is a public area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

California v. Greenwood (1988)

LANDMARK SC CASE

Background Constitutional Question

Decision

Police suspected Billy Greenwood was involved in illegal drug dealing. They searched his trash on the curb and found incriminating evidence.

Greenwood was arrested and convicted of drug crimes, but claimed the search of his trash was unreasonable.

Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood’s

garbage violate the 4th Amendment?

6-2 in favor of California

Garbage placed at the curb is unprotected because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (it has been relinquished into a public area) for anyone to see/search.

Reasonable Expectation

Clearly private places that society agrees upon

When you’ve taken steps to conceal your possessions/activities

NO Reasonable Expectation

Clearly public areasExposing

information/activities with or without clear intent

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

When you HAVE an expectation of privacy, a WARRANT is needed for a search or seizure to occur.

A court order issued by a magistrate or judge that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search or seizure based on probable cause of suspicious activity. Must describe place/person to be searched Must identify what is being searched FOR

WARRANTS

If a search/seizure is conducted without a warrant by a law enforcement officer UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the 4 th Amendment protects you from the government’s unreasonable actions.

You are not protected by searches/seizures conducted by private citizens. For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting

on a pure hunch searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard.

As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply 4 th Amendment guidelines to their conduct.

WARRANTS

Reasonable Suspicion

a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less-reliable nature, that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous Level of suspicion LOWER

than probable cause Cannot get warrant

based on reasonable suspicion alone

Probable Causereasonably reliable

information to suspect there is a "fair probability" that a person has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence

REASONABLE SUSPICION VS. PROBABLE CAUSE

A police officer cannot search your car without a warrant and without your consent.

HOWEVER, if the officer suspects drug activity this could raise “reasonable suspicion.” Red eyes, jumpy behavior, shaky hands, weird smell, etc

With reasonable suspicion, an officer can call in reinforcements or a K9 unit to confirm reasonable suspicion. K9 unit smells drugs? PROBABLE CAUSE and your car can

be searched on the spot.

REASONABLE SUSPICION VS.PROBABLE CAUSE

If you consent to a search, no warrant is needed. Police can seize anything they find on you or that is in your

home/car If no warrant, you can say you do not consent to the search.

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

If police do not have a warrant and you do not consent, police can search/take anything in PLAIN VIEW. Drugs on table that can be seen from front door. Gun on passenger side seat. Alcohol in back seat of car.

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

Kyllo v. United States (2000)

LANDMARK SC CASE

Background Constitutional Question

Decision

Federal agents suspected Danny Kyllo of growing marijuana in his home.

Federal agents used a thermal-imaging device to scan his home, looking for hot areas (heat lamps, lights, etc). Hot areas were found and a judge issued a warrant to search the inside of the home.

Marijuana plants were found and Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge. He claimed the search was unreasonable and evidence should not be used in court.

Does the use of a thermal-imaging device

to detect relative amounts of hear

emanating from a private home constitute an

unconstitutional search in violation of the 4th

Amendment?

5-4 in favor of Kyllo

The government cannot use a device that is not in general public use to explore areas that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion.

Evidence obtained during an unreasonable search/seizure is inadmissible in court.

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Mapp v. Ohio (1960)

LANDMARK SC CASE

Background Constitutional Question

Decision

Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials confiscated by Ohio state police during a warrantless search of her home.

She appealed the conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.

Were the confiscated materials protected by the

1st Amendment?

May evidence obtained through a search in violation

of the 4th Amendment be admitted in a state criminal

proceeding?

6-3 in favor of Mapp

Brushed aside 1st Amendment issue, and declared that all evidence obtained by unconstitutional searches/seizures is inadmissible in state courts.

Applied the exclusionary rule to state/local governments.

An SRO only needs reasonable suspicion, not probable cause to search a student, their belongings, lockers, car on school property, etc. The need to maintain order and ensure the public safety of other

students is paramount to 4 th Amendment protections.

Teachers and administrators can search you/your stuff because they are not agents of the government, rather private citizens. Reasonable suspicion must still be present. The 4 th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and

seizures by the government, not private citizens. A search is considered warranted if it is likely to produce evidence

(must have reasonable suspicion). If a search without reasonable suspicion (random searches) yields

criminal evidence, it might not be admitted in court.

RIGHTS AT SCHOOL

TLO v. New Jersey (1983)

LANDMARK SC CASE

Background Constitutional Question

Decision

14 year old student was suspected of smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom. TLO denied smoking, but her friend confessed, giving reasonable suspicion to search her purse.

Cigarettes and marijuana were found. During TLO’s juvenile hearing, TLO claimed her 4th Amendment rights were violated.

Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public

schools?

6-3 in favor of New Jersey

There is a limited expectation of privacy in public schools.

Reasonable suspicion was present, therefore making the search reasonable.

Board of Education v. Earls (2001)

LANDMARK SC CASE

Background Constitutional Question

Decision

Students in the Tecumseh, OK School District were required to consent to urinary drug testing to participate in extra curricular activities.

Several students and parents claimed the policy violated the 4th Amendment.

Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all students who participate in competitive

extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing, consistent with the 4th

Amendment?

5-4 in favor of Board of Ed.

The policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among students.

The urine tests were a minimal intrusion on the students “limited privacy interests” at school.