Introductory Criminal Justice: Fourth Amendment (Search, Seizure, Warrant Exceptions)

Fourth Amendment (Search, Seizure, Warrant Exceptions)

What This Is

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Its purpose is to safeguard individual privacy and security from unwarranted intrusions by law enforcement.

Key Definitions / Models / Steps

• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: The idea that individuals have a right to be free from government intrusion into their private lives. (Example: A person's home is considered private, but a public park is not.)
• Warrant: A court order that authorizes law enforcement to search or seize property. (Example: A police officer obtains a warrant to search a suspect's home for evidence.)
• Probable Cause: A standard used to determine whether a warrant is necessary; it requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or is being committed. (Example: A police officer witnesses a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime, establishing probable cause.)
• Exigent Circumstances: Situations where a warrant is not required, such as when evidence is about to be destroyed or a suspect is fleeing. (Example: A police officer enters a burning building to rescue a person without a warrant.)
• Plain View Doctrine: A rule that allows police to seize evidence that is in plain view, even without a warrant. (Example: A police officer sees a gun on a table during a lawful entry into a home.)
• Stop and Frisk: A police tactic that allows officers to briefly detain and search individuals for weapons or other evidence. (Example: A police officer stops and frisks a person on the street based on a reasonable suspicion of a crime.)
• Terry v. Ohio (1968): A landmark case that established the standard for stop and frisk searches. (Holding: Police may stop and frisk individuals based on reasonable suspicion.)
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961): A case that established the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of evidence obtained through unconstitutional means. (Holding: Evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search is inadmissible in court.)
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966): A case that established the requirement for police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning. (Holding: Suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney.)
• Warrantless Arrest: An arrest made without a warrant, which is typically allowed in situations where a crime is committed in the officer's presence. (Example: A police officer witnesses a suspect committing a crime and arrests them without a warrant.)
• Carroll v. United States (1925): A case that established the standard for warrantless searches of vehicles. (Holding: Police may search vehicles without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband.)

Practical Application

A police officer is investigating a robbery and has reason to believe that the suspect is hiding in a nearby apartment. The officer obtains a warrant to search the apartment, but the suspect is not present. Instead, the officer finds a gun on the kitchen table. In this scenario, the officer would be applying the plain view doctrine, as the gun was in plain view during a lawful entry into the apartment. The officer would also be applying the exclusionary rule, as the gun would be admissible as evidence in court.

Common Misunderstandings

• Misunderstanding: The Fourth Amendment only applies to searches of homes and not to public places.
• Correction: The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, regardless of whether the search occurs in a public or private place.
• Misunderstanding: Police can search anyone they want without a warrant.
• Correction: Police must have probable cause or exigent circumstances to search someone without a warrant.
• Misunderstanding: The exclusionary rule only applies to searches of homes and not to other types of searches.
• Correction: The exclusionary rule applies to all searches that are conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the type of search.

Exam Tips

• Know the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion: Probable cause requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or is being committed, while reasonable suspicion requires a reasonable basis to suspect that a crime is being committed.
• Understand the exceptions to the warrant requirement: Exigent circumstances, plain view doctrine, and stop and frisk are all exceptions to the warrant requirement.
• Know the key Supreme Court cases: Mapp v. Ohio, Terry v. Ohio, and Miranda v. Arizona are all landmark cases that have shaped the law of search and seizure.
• Be able to apply the Fourth Amendment to different scenarios: Be able to apply the Fourth Amendment to different types of searches and seizures, such as searches of homes, vehicles, and public places.

Quick Recap

• The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Reasonable expectation of privacy is a key concept in search and seizure law.
• Probable cause is required for a warrant to be issued.
• Exigent circumstances allow for warrantless searches.
• Plain view doctrine allows for the seizure of evidence in plain view.
• Stop and frisk is a police tactic that allows for brief detention and search.
• Mapp v. Ohio established the exclusionary rule.
• Terry v. Ohio established the standard for stop and frisk searches.
• Miranda v. Arizona established the requirement for police to inform suspects of their rights.
• Carroll v. United States established the standard for warrantless searches of vehicles.