The Fourth Amendment
The Right to Search and Seizure
1791 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.
1886 Boyd V. State
Boyd V. State is one of the first recorded court cases that settled a dispute
involving the fourth amendment.
Before Boyd V. State other issues involving the fourth amendment weren't
settled very clearly.
In the case of Boyd V. State the Supreme Court overruled a statute that
forced Boyd to present business documents without probable cause.
These documents incriminated Boyd.
1914 Weeks V. State
In the case of Weeks V. State the Supreme Court created the Exclusionary
Rule.
The Exclusionary Rule prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence in
court cases.
1950 Rabinowitz V. State
In the Case of Rabinowitz V. State, an arrest warrant had been put out for
Rabinowitz but not a search warrant for his appartment.
The arresting officers took in Rabinowitz but as well did they search his
apartment and seize forged stamps.
Because a search warrant was not issued the forged stamps were thrown
out in court.
1961 Mapp V. Ohio
In the case of Mapp V. Ohio Police officers had received a confidential tip
about the possession of bomb and gambling paraphernalia.
The officers searched Mapps home and found neither, however they did
find illegal obscene material, they arrested and jailed Mapp.
However they barged into his home without a warrant and on top of that
the confidential tip wouldn't have been enough to secure a warrant in the
first place.
1967 Katz V. State
In the case of Katz V. State police officer placed a wiretap on a telephone
booth that is notable used by Mr. Katz.
The information received from listening in on one of his conversations was
enough to secure a search warrant.
However this was overturned because the listening of his conversation
was a violation of his right to privacy.
1973 Robinson V. State
In the case of Robinson V. State, Robinson was arrested for driving
without a license.
The arresting officer searched Mr. Robinsons person and found heroin in a
cigarette case.
The searching of Mr. Robinsons person was a violation of his fourth
amendment rights.
The possession charge was overturned and Robinson was released.
1983 Gates V. Illinois
In the case of Gates V. Illinois and anonymous tip was deliver to the
Bloomingdale police department that Mr. and Mrs. Gates were drug
traffickers.
Mr. and Mrs. Gates allegedly transported illegal drugs from Florida to
Illinois.
Bloomingdale police department did the right thing and got a search
warrant for their vehicle and their home.
In the search they revealed more than 350 pounds of marijuana.
However because the search warrant did not meet probable cause
because it was obtained solely by the testimony of an unknown informant
the ruling was overturned.
1991 Bostick V. Florida
In the case of Bostick V. Florida, Bostick was approached on his bus ride
to Atlanta by the police department.
The police department started to question Bostick and asked to search his
luggage.
With the consent of Bostick they searched his luggage and found cocaine.
This case was taken to the Supreme Court and overruled on the grounds
that Bostick was coerced into his decision.
Later this case was revisited and overruled again.
However coercion to force you to incriminate yourself is a violation to both
your fourth and fifth amendment rights.
2002 Earls V. Board of Education
In the case of Earls V. Board of Education, Earls was not the direct victim
but was the one to stand up for students rights.
In the Oklahoma school districts it is policy that all high school and middle
school students be drug tested before participating in after school
activities.
This was determined a violation of the fourth amendment because the
schools could not provide evidence of drug abuse, thus making drug
testing unnecessary.
Probable Cause
Bibliography
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_a
mendment
http://www.fourthamendmentsummaries.com/c
ases/1960s_cases.html
