Unrestricted Search and Seizure
Before the Fourth Amendment came into being, Great Britain would use a legal instrument called a “Writ of Assistance” in the American colonies. These writs functioned as general search and seizure warrants. They had no requirement of what was or who was to be searched or seized. To make matters worse, they never expired and could be transferred from person to person.
These writs allowed the British government broad and general permission to interfere with the private lives of the colonists with no real restrictions. The British government could come and search whoever or whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted to.
Fourth Amendment Goals
The goal of the Fourth Amendment was to restrict government and provide security to Americans against this abuse. This is part of the “right of privacy” we as Americans enjoy. Today, in order for the government to search or seize something or someone, the general rule is, they must first obtain a warrant based upon probable cause from a neutral magistrate.
In Mapp v. Ohio the Supreme Court held that any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment would not be admissible in court.
The Fourth Amendment Today
However, over the years courts have been granting more and more leniency on the admissibility of evidence, even if it could be argued that it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is because the exceptions to the warrant requirement have almost completely swallowed the rule.
This is due in part to advancements in technology. The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has been stretched to its limit for scenarios the Founders probably could not have imagined such as automobiles, computers, electronic mail, and phone metadata.
We have talked about the nearly endless list of ways police can search your car in the past, with the inventory and automobile exceptions, but it is important to know about other types of government encroachment on your right to privacy.
We see a recurring theme when it comes to this kind of governmental interference. A new technology emerges, law enforcement uses this technology, pushing the limits of the Fourth Amendment, and then the courts (sometimes) reign them in.
For example, there have been many cases dealing with cell phone searches. Up until very recently, the police would just search through someone’s cell phone without a warrant to see what they could find. The courts have now held that to search through someone’s cell phone, the police must first obtain a warrant.
Another example is the use of infrared. Essentially, police were using thermal imaging to look directly into a person’s house and could see people, fixtures within the home, or anything else that puts off a heat signature. Based upon what the police would see during that thermal search, they would then obtain a warrant for a physical search.
However, in Kyllo v. The United States, the Supreme Court held that the use of thermal image devices from a public vantage point to monitor a person’s home constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and required a warrant. This is a fast-changing area of the law, and the courts will have to make decisions relating to the use of new technologies as they advance and whether they implicate the Fourth Amendment.
What you need to know: do not give up your 4th Amendment Rights. If an officer says he is going to conduct a search, invoke your rights and do not consent. They may search anyway, but at least now your attorney may be able to get that evidence thrown out in court.
If you have any questions about the Fourth Amendment, call U.S. LawShield and ask to speak with your Independent Program Attorney.
The information provided in this presentation is intended to provide general information to individuals and is not legal advice. The information included in this publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication without the prior written consent of U.S. LawShield, to be given or withheld at our discretion. The information is not a substitute for, and does not replace the advice or representation of a licensed attorney. We strive to ensure the information included in this publication is accurate and current, however, no claim is made to the accuracy of the information and we are not responsible for any consequences that may result from the use of information in this publication. The use of this publication does not create an attorney-client relationship between U.S. LawShield, any independent program attorney, and any individual.