Also known as: 4th Amendment · U.S. Const. amend. IV · search and seizure clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The constitutional amendment ratified in 1791 that protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause.
Francisco Frost was observed by an officer committing a minor traffic offense punishable only by a fine while driving through an intersection. The officer arrested Frost on the spot without obtaining a warrant. Frost challenged the arrest as violating the Fourth Amendment. The court upheld the arrest because the offense occurred in the officer's presence.
Fatima Flores heard officers knock at her door and immediately began flushing evidence down the toilet. The officers entered without a warrant upon hearing the sounds of destruction. Flores moved to suppress the recovered items. The court admitted the evidence because the officers reasonably believed destruction was imminent and had not created the exigency themselves.
Fumiko Fujimoto was prosecuted in state court after officers conducted an unconstitutional search of her vehicle. The state sought to introduce the seized items at trial. Fujimoto moved to suppress under the Fourth Amendment. The court excluded the evidence because the exclusionary rule applies to state proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Frank Fisher placed personal papers inside a public phone booth and closed the door before making a call. Officers listened to the conversation without a warrant. Fisher moved to suppress the recording. The court held that the Fourth Amendment protected his reasonable expectation of privacy even though the booth was in a public location.
Forrest Falconer alleged that federal narcotics agents conducted an unreasonable search of his apartment without a warrant. He filed a civil suit seeking damages for the violation. The agents moved to dismiss on immunity grounds. The court recognized an implied cause of action under the Fourth Amendment for the constitutional violation.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseFaye Fuller owned coastal property subject to new state environmental restrictions that barred all development. She sued the state agency claiming the rules effected a taking. The court analyzed whether the restrictions deprived her of all economically viable use under constitutional standards.
In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas purchased two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, for $975,000. He intended to construct single-family homes on the parcels, which at the time were zoned for such use and required no building permit for development. No portion of the lots qualified as a critical area under then-existing coastal zone legislation. Subsequently, in 1988, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act. The legislation established a baseline and prohibited construction of occupable improvements seaward of a line drawn 20 feet landward of that baseline, directly affecting Lucas's parcels by barring any permanent habitable structures. Lucas filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas alleging that the Act's restrictions effected a taking of his property without just compensation. Following a bench trial, the court determined that the prohibition rendered the lots valueless and ordered the state to pay just compensation in the amount of $1,232,387.50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the trial court's judgment. It accepted the legislature's findings that new construction threatened public resources and concluded that a regulation designed to prevent serious public harm could not constitute a taking. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision.
View caseYes. The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of evidence obtained through Fourth Amendment violations in state court proceedings. It is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to deter police misconduct.
The reasonable expectation of privacy test applies. A person must exhibit an actual subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as objectively reasonable. Government action violating that expectation amounts to a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Officers may enter when they reasonably believe evidence is being destroyed and the exigency was not created by their own Fourth Amendment violation. The entry remains valid even if the exigency arises after officers knock and announce.
Yes. A warrantless arrest is permitted for a misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence even when the offense carries no possibility of incarceration.
…is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States , 389 U. S. 347 (1967). If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than…