LS305

Session TwoFourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment

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.

Why is this Amendment important today?

• Safety• Individual Privacy• Personal property rights• Prevents unreasonable searches without a

warrant

What Would Life Be Like Without the Fourth Amendment?

• Anyone could be searched at anytime• Racial Profiling• Lack of privacy• It could possibly cut down on crime. If criminals knew that

they could be searched for no reason, they may be deterred from the act.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

USA PATRIOT Act

• Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

• Congress passed; Bush signed October 26, 2001• Increased ability of law enforcement agencies to search

telephone, email communications, medical, financial, and other records

• Allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose.

Fourth Amendment

• The fourth amendment of the constitution provides protection against unreasonable

intrusions by government• probable cause• reasonable expectation of privacy

Fourth Amendment

• Rules of not found in amendment• Courts clarified Protections to:

• houses• persons• papers • effects

Fourth Amendment

• U.S. Supreme Court set standards for search and seizure across all states

• States can establish higher standards • Courts must interpret unreasonable

Events not Protected

• If the activity does not involve violating an expectation of privacy or the police, it is not regarded as a search.

• The fourth amendment was designed to protect people from government, not from each other.

• The fourth amendment protects people, not places.• Fourth amendment does not protect:

• searches and seizures by private persons• searches and seizures of abandoned property• matters exposed to public view• canine inspections to detect narcotics

Warrants and Probable Cause

• Items that are discovered in plain view during a lawful search are admissible. Plain view items do not constitute search.

• A warrant cannot be issued “but upon probable cause”

• Requires a neutral party make the determination.• Judges use their own judgment to determine if a

warrant is justified• Information must be “fresh”

Seizure

• Search and seizure are generally terms used together but they are very different events.

• You can have a search without a seizure and a seizure without a search

• Four reasons to seize:• evidence• determine ownership or content• prevent movement• safekeeping

Are the following searches

REASONSABLE?

Was the warrant reasonable?

• Edward Coolidge was arrested in connection with the Murder of a 14-year-old girl. The Attorney General of the state of New Hampshire, authorized by state law to issue search warrants as a justice of the peace, issued a search warrant for Coolidge’s car. It was believed that the car was used by Coolidge on the night of the murder.

• The same Attorney General took personal charge of the case and he later served as chief prosecutor at Coolidge’s trial.

• Coolidge argued that the search warrant was illegal because it was issued by someone involved in the actual investigation of the case, not by a neutral and fair judge.

The warrant was illegal. The issuing judge must be impartial and detached, not a part of the investigation and prosecution.

Cooldige v. New Hampshire (1971)

• Police got a warrant to arrest Archie Hill. Police went to Hill’s apartment and found there a man who fit the description, exactly, of Hill. The man claimed to be a Mr. Miller, not Hill.

• Nevertheless, they arrested the man as Hill and searched the apartment, finding a pistol, and a loaded ammunition clip. Police later find out that the man really was Miller, not Hill.

• They later arrested Hill and used the pistol found in his apartment to convict him of a robbery charge. Hill objected to the search of his apartment, since it was Miller, not Hill, that the police found there.

Was the search legal?

Hill v. California (1971)

The search was legal. The police had probable cause and had acted upon that probability. The 4th Amendment doesn’t require certainty – only probability. The police acted in good faith.

Was the search legal without a warrant?

• Police got a warrant to arrest Ted Chimel for the burglary of a coin shop. They went to his home, arrested him, and then, without a search warrant, proceeded to search the entire three-bedroom house, including the attic, the garage, and a small workshop.

• During the search, the police found some of the stolen coins. Chimel objected to the search. He agreed that the police had a right to arrest him, but argued that if they wanted to search his entire house, they should have gotten a search warrant.

Chimel v. California (1969)

A search without a warrant and incident to arrest must be limited to the suspect and the immediate area around him. The search was illegal – the police had time after the arrest to get a search warrant to search the entire house.

Was this an unreasonable search?

• Having some information that Antonio Rochin was selling narcotics, police went to his house. Finding the outside door open, they entered and then forced open the door to Rochin’s room on the second floor. Inside they found Rochin sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed. On a night stand beside the bed, the police saw two capsules and asked “Whose stuff is this?” Rochin grabbed the capsules and swallowed them. Police jumped on Rochin and tried to get the capsules out of his mouth.

• When that failed, he was handcuffed, taken to a hospital, and at the direction of the police, had his stomach pumped. Among the substances brought up out of Rochin’s stomach were two capsules which proved to contain morphine.

• Rochin was convicted of drug possession. He objected on the ground that police had no right to forcibly pump his stomach and to do so was unreasonable search.

Rochin v. California (1952)

The search was illegal. The methods used offended the court’s sense of justice.

Was this search, under these circumstances, unreasonable?• A truck driver by the name of Paul Breithaupt was involved in

an automobile accident in which three people were killed. Police at the scene found Breithaupt unconscious, his eyes glassy and bloodshot, and a nearly-empty liquor bottle in his truck.

• Breithaupt was brought to a hospital where, while unconscious, a blood sample was taken from his body. The blood contained a high enough percentage of alcohol to indicate that Breithaupt was intoxicated. He was convicted of manslaughter. He objected to the use of the blood test as evidence against him. He claimed that it was gotten as a result of an unreasonable search.

Breithaupt v. Abram (1957)

• The search was reasonable. The methods used did not involve Rochin-type coercion or brutality.

.Was this search reasonable?

• In an attempt to get evidence of adultery by his wife so he could get a divorce, Abraham Sackler illegally forced his way into the apartment his wife was living in, separate from him.

• With the evidence he obtained, he applied for a divorce. His wife objected on the grounds that Sackler entered her apartment illegally and therefore, the search was unreasonable

Sackler v. Sackler (1964)

• The search was reasonable. The 4th Amendment applies only to governmental searches and seizures, not searches and seizures by private persons

Was the search reasonable?

Mexican police, alerted by U.S. agents to Henry Brulay’s smuggling activities, searched Brulay’s car and house in Tijuana, Mexico and found evidence which led to his conviction. Brulay objected to the search because the Mexican police did not have a warrant and, therefore, the search was unreasonable.

.Brulay v. U.S. (1967)

The search was reasonable. The 4th Amendment does not apply to officials of foreign governments.

Was a search, under these circumstances, unreasonable?

• Police looked through three open garbage cans a few feet from the back porch of Robert Edwards’ house. They found evidence of narcotics and Edwards was arrested, tried, and convicted. Edwards objected to the search of his garbage cans an unreasonable search.

People v. Edwards (1969)

• The search was unreasonable – garbage cans on a defendant’s property and garbage does not become public property until it had been picked up by sanitation workers. The police could not see the marijuana in the garbage can without rummaging through the garbage first. The police committed a trespass.

Was this treatment reasonable?

• A woman was stopped for not wearing her seatbelt while driving with her children. The police officers "pulled Atwater over, verbally berated her, handcuffed her, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the local police station, where she was made to remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets. Officers took her 'mug shot' and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about an hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on bond."

• Atwater sued, arguing that this type of treatment as unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Souter, writing for the 5-4 majority said that the police may arrest and mistreat them at any time, so long as they have reasonable suspicion that even the smallest infraction has been committed.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)

• The Court held that even though the woman was subjected to "pointless indignity" for the commission of a violation of the Texas seatbelt law, her search and seizure was proper by Fourth Amendment standards.

Was this search unreasonable?

• Drug testing of railway employees after an accident?

• Random drug testing of customs officials?

• Random drug tests of student athletes?• Georgia law requiring political

candidates to test negative for drug use in order to be placed on the ballot?