4th amendment essay topics

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

115 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It is a crucial component of the Bill of Rights and plays a key role in safeguarding individual privacy and liberty. As such, it is a topic that is frequently discussed and debated in legal and political circles.

If you are studying constitutional law or just interested in learning more about the Fourth Amendment, writing an essay on this topic can be a great way to deepen your understanding of this important issue. To help get you started, here are 115 Fourth Amendment essay topic ideas and examples:

• The history and origins of the Fourth Amendment
• The significance of the Fourth Amendment in protecting individual rights
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on law enforcement practices
• The evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• The role of the exclusionary rule in enforcing the Fourth Amendment
• The limitations of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age
• The debate over the use of surveillance technology in law enforcement
• The intersection of the Fourth Amendment and national security concerns
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for private businesses
• The relationship between the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional rights
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on marginalized communities
• The role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the Fourth Amendment
• The future of the Fourth Amendment in a changing legal landscape
• The role of technology in shaping Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• The impact of landmark Supreme Court cases on the Fourth Amendment
• The debate over the use of no-knock warrants in law enforcement
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against police brutality
• The impact of the War on Drugs on Fourth Amendment rights
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for immigration enforcement
• The relationship between the Fourth Amendment and the right to privacy
• The impact of the Patriot Act on Fourth Amendment protections
• The role of consent in Fourth Amendment analysis
• The implications of racial profiling for Fourth Amendment rights
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of body cameras by police officers
• The debate over the use of drug-sniffing dogs in law enforcement
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of drones in surveillance
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on border searches and seizures
• The role of exigent circumstances in Fourth Amendment analysis
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of sting operations by law enforcement
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of GPS tracking devices
• The debate over the use of thermal imaging technology in law enforcement
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of facial recognition technology
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of cell phone tracking
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against unreasonable searches of electronic devices
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of social media in criminal investigations
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of license plate readers
• The debate over the use of predictive policing in law enforcement
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against unreasonable searches of homes
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of sobriety checkpoints
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of drug testing in schools
• The debate over the use of random drug testing in the workplace
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against unreasonable searches of vehicles
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of drug interdiction checkpoints
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of airport security screenings
• The debate over the use of body scanners in airport security
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against unreasonable searches of personal property
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of trash searches by law enforcement
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of drug busts in public places
• The debate over the use of drug testing for welfare recipients
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against unreasonable searches of public spaces
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of stop-and-frisk policies
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of roadblocks for DUI enforcement
• The debate over the use of drug testing for student athletes
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against unreasonable searches of students in schools
• The implications of the Fourth Amendment for the use of drug testing for probation and parole
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on the use of drug testing for job applicants
• The debate over the use of drug testing for public housing residents
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against unreasonable searches of public transportation passengers
• The implications of

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2024 Pitchgrade

52 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best fourth amendment topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on fourth amendment, 📌 interesting topics to write about fourth amendment.

• The Practical Application of the Fourth Amendment in Law Enforcement However, not every search that is conducted by the police officers requires the application of the Fourth Amendment. However, there is one significant outcome of the Amendment that concerns the fact that it may be […]
• The Fourth Amendment and the Poisonous Tree Doctrine The same thing can be said of the outcome of the said law: the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because the U.S.
• Determination Fourth Amendment Firstly, the correlation between the Fourth Amendment and the actions of the police on private property have to be determined to have a general perception of the allowed actions of the police.
• Fourth Amendment in Bailey v. United States The following discussion and analysis provide a deeper cross-sectional dissection of the case about the fourth amendment In the case of Bailey v United States, the defendant, Bailey was stopped by police officers from the […]
• Fourth Amendment: Telephone Calls and Privacy Rights Despite the confusion, many lawyers agree that in order to establish what is reasonable and what is not, the court should evaluate the case on the basis of the following criteria; First, the court should […]
• Warrantless Search: The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution That is why it is now illegal for the officers to conduct a warrantless search if they are convinced that any time wastage would jeopardize their ability to succeed in making an arrest.
• Is There a Need to Change the Fourth Amendment? According to legal experts, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment and asserted that “The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what a person knowingly exposes to the public.
• The Fourth Amendment: Origin and Guarding Peoples Rights The following is a text from the amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, will not be violated, and no warrants […]
• Drug Testing and 4th Amendment of the US Constitution S Constitution on the drug prevention in the nation and it tries to judge whether legalization, decriminalizing drug use and drug treatment could offer a better solution to the issue of drug use and drug […]
• Constitutional Law: Violation of the Fourth Amendment The initiators of the Amendment believed that being free from the intrusion of the government into one’s home is a natural right and therefore indispensable to liberty.
• The Common Law Background of the Fourth Amendment Most of the legal declarations that make up the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, were founded on the Common Law, which existed in the 16th and 17th century in England.
• Wiretaps and the Fourth Amendment
• The Pros and Cons of the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment Act of the United States
• The Importance of the Fourth Amendment
• Understanding the Fourth Amendment and the Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures in the American Constitution
• The Common Law Background of the Fourth Amendment
• Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment
• The Patriot Act Violates the Fourth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment Protections and Denials
• The Fourth Amendment and Public School Protocols
• The Computer Crime and the Fourth Amendment
• Technological Advances and the Fourth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment Implications Analysis
• How Technology Has Impacting the Fourth Amendment
• Reasons for Applying the Fourth Amendment
• Search, Seizure and False Arrest: An Analysis of Fourth Amendment Remedies When Police Can Plant Evidence
• The Fourth Amendment: Tracing Relevant Key Supreme Court Decisions
• The Fourth Amendment: New Jersey vs. TLO
• Police Challenge the Fourth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment Basics and Law Enforcement Hacking
• Common-Law Fourth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment: Conducting Constitutional Searches
• The Fourth Amendment Forbids Only Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
• The History and Significance of the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment and the Constitution of the United States
• Analyzing Fourth Amendment Issues
• Discrimination in the Fourth Amendment
• The Legal Definition of the Fourth Amendment
• Does the Fourth Amendment Work
• The Fourth Amendment Throughout Modern Culture
• Does the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment Protect Information Contained in a Paging Device
• Current Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
• The Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure
• Did the FBI Break the Fourth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment Rights and School Safety
• Aviation Law and the Fourth Amendment
• Infringing the Fourth Amendment: Edward Snowden and the NSA
• How the Patriot Act Stepped on the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment and Its Meaning in America Today
• Magistrates, Warrants, and the Fourth Amendment
• Censorship Essay Ideas
• Freedom of Speech Ideas
• US History Topics
• Electoral College Research Topics
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Criminal Procedure Titles
• Internet Privacy Essay Topics
• Crime Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, January 21). 52 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/

"52 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 21 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '52 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 21 January.

IvyPanda . 2023. "52 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "52 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "52 Fourth Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Criminal Procedure Research Topics Topics: 55
• Uniform Essay Topics Topics: 50
• Contract Law Research Topics Topics: 113
• Crime Investigation Topics Topics: 131
• Intellectual Property Topics Topics: 107
• Sex Offender Research Topics Topics: 54
• Civil Law Topics Topics: 54
• Criminal Behavior Essay Topics Topics: 71
• Organized Crime Topics Topics: 52
• Juvenile Delinquency Research Topics Topics: 133
• Criminal Justice Paper Topics Topics: 218
• Supreme Court Paper Topics Topics: 87
• Criminology Research Topics Topics: 163
• Court Topics Topics: 140
• Drug Trafficking Research Topics Topics: 52

49 Fourth Amendment Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on fourth amendment, 🎓 most interesting fourth amendment research titles, 💡 simple fourth amendment essay ideas.

• Fourth Amendment Most Important Parts
• Public Opinion Regarding the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment and Technology Relationship
• The Fourth Amendment and Its Impact
• Violations of the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Fourth Amendment Violation: Mitchell v. Wisconsin
• The Fourth Amendment: Privacy in the Digital Media
• Criminal Procedure: the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
• Social Norms in Fourth Amendment Law
• The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation
• Fugitives From Slavery and the Lost History of the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment and the Control of Police Discretion
• Race and Police Violence: What’s the Fourth Amendment Got to Do With It
• The Fourth Amendment and the Post-Roe Future of Privacy
• Fourth Amendment Doctrine and Some Hints
• The Effect of Legislation on Fourth Amendment Protection
• Katz as Originalism: The Fourth Amendment & Privacy
• The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment
• A Reform and Revolution to Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
• The Fourth Amendment and the Problem of Social Cost
• Vehicle Searches Under the Fourth Amendmentendment Jurisprudence
• The Fourth Amendment During the Lochner Era
• Emergency Circumstances, Police Responses, and Fourth Amendment Restrictions
• The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Requirement and Warrantless Searches
• John Adams, His Era, and the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning
• Fourth Amendment Standing and the General Rule of Waiver
• The Origins and Legacy of the Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Balancing Model
• The Carpenter Test as a Transformation of Fourth Amendment Law
• Navigating Digital Data and the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment Limits of Internet Content Preservation
• Dignity or Death: The Black Male Assertion of the Fourth Amendment
• The “War on Terror” and the War on the Fourth Amendment
• Innocence, Privacy, and Targeting in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
• The War on Drugs and the Erosion of Fourth Amendment Rights
• Reclaiming “Abandoned” DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy
• The Myth of Objectivity in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
• Kaupp vs. Texas: Breathing Life Into the Fourth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment: Using the Drug Courier Profile to Fight the War on Drugs
• The Fourth Amendment and Computer Searches Warrants
• Facial Recognition Technology: A Fourth Amendment Violation
• The Lost “Effects” of the Fourth Amendment
• Scope of the Rights Protected by the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent
• Fourth Amendment Rights of Passengers During Police Stops
• Technological Innovation and the Application of the Fourth Amendment
• Privacy in the Digital Age: 21st-Century Challenges to the Fourth Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment and Los Angeles Criminal Defense

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2024, August 12). 49 Fourth Amendment Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/

"49 Fourth Amendment Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 12 Aug. 2024, studycorgi.com/ideas/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2024) '49 Fourth Amendment Essay Topics'. 12 August.

1. StudyCorgi . "49 Fourth Amendment Essay Topics." August 12, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "49 Fourth Amendment Essay Topics." August 12, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2024. "49 Fourth Amendment Essay Topics." August 12, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/fourth-amendment-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Fourth Amendment were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on September 9, 2024 .

The Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Citizen Rights in Modern America

This essay about the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explores its critical role in protecting citizens from government overreach and ensuring privacy and liberty. It discusses the amendment’s historical context, its relevance in modern times amid digital privacy concerns and national security measures like the USA PATRIOT Act, and its intersection with issues of racial justice and surveillance technology. The essay emphasizes the ongoing importance of the Fourth Amendment in balancing law enforcement needs with individual rights.

How it works

In the vast realm of American legal doctrine, few doctrines wield the profound impact and lasting relevance of the Fourth Amendment. Embedded within the revered framework of the Bill of Rights, this constitutional cornerstone stands as a formidable bulwark against governmental overreach into the lives of its citizens. With succinct yet resounding language, it proclaims: “The people’s right 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.

Birthed from the crucible of colonial dissent against British tyranny, the Fourth Amendment resonates with the enduring suspicion of unchecked governmental authority. At its core lies the protection of individual privacy and liberty, navigating a delicate balance between the imperatives of law enforcement and the sanctity of citizens’ rights. However, in the intricate fabric of modern America, the application and interpretation of the Fourth Amendment have become enmeshed in a web of complexity, particularly in light of rapid technological advancements and burgeoning security concerns.

One of the most fiercely debated issues surrounding the Fourth Amendment in contemporary society revolves around digital privacy. The exponential rise of smartphones, social media platforms, and cloud computing has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of privacy rights. Courts grapple with perplexing questions regarding the extent to which governmental entities can delve into electronic communications, track location data, and scrutinize other digital trails without transgressing the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. Landmark cases such as Carpenter v. United States (2018), which delved into the contentious realm of warrantless acquisition of cell phone location records, serve as stark reminders of the urgent need for updated legal frameworks to navigate the labyrinthine challenges posed by technology.

Moreover, the specter of the War on Terror looms large over traditional notions of privacy and civil liberties. The enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in the aftermath of the seismic events of 9/11 ushered in an era of expanded governmental surveillance powers in the name of national security. Provisions such as roving wiretaps and the acquisition of business records without warrants have sparked vigorous debates regarding the potential erosion of Fourth Amendment safeguards. While advocates staunchly argue for the necessity of these measures in combating terrorism, critics warn of the dangers of abuse and the accompanying chilling effect on free expression.

The Fourth Amendment further intersects with the realms of racial justice and police accountability, thrusting issues of systemic racism and disproportionate law enforcement practices into the spotlight. Historically marginalized communities have borne the brunt of invasive law enforcement tactics, ranging from discriminatory stop-and-frisk policies to alarming no-knock raids. Precedents such as Terry v. Ohio (1968), which established the controversial “stop and frisk” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, have faced scathing criticism for their disproportionate impact on people of color. The impassioned calls of the Black Lives Matter movement resonate with demands for sweeping reforms aimed at addressing entrenched racial biases within the criminal justice system and upholding the Fourth Amendment rights of all citizens.

In concert with these contemporary quandaries, the Fourth Amendment continues to cast its long shadow over conventional law enforcement practices. The proliferation of surveillance technologies, including drones and facial recognition software, poses novel quandaries concerning the boundaries of privacy and the extent of governmental authority. Landmark judicial pronouncements such as Katz v. United States (1967), which expansively extended Fourth Amendment protections to electronic communications, establish crucial benchmarks for regulating emerging forms of surveillance.

Despite the labyrinthine debates and intricate nuances, the Fourth Amendment endures as a guiding principle of American democracy, steadfastly guarding against arbitrary governmental intrusions. Its foundational principles of reasonableness, probable cause, and particularity serve as indispensable signposts for striking a fair balance between the imperatives of law enforcement and the sacred rights of individuals. As the wheels of technology continue to turn and societal values evolve, the tapestry of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence will undoubtedly evolve in tandem. Yet, its fundamental mission—to safeguard the privacy and dignity of all citizens—remains as relevant today as it was when inscribed over two centuries ago. In the timeless words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “The makers of our Constitution… sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”

Cite this page

The Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Citizen Rights in Modern America. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-the-fourth-amendment-on-citizen-rights-in-modern-america/

"The Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Citizen Rights in Modern America." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-the-fourth-amendment-on-citizen-rights-in-modern-america/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Citizen Rights in Modern America . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-the-fourth-amendment-on-citizen-rights-in-modern-america/ [Accessed: 26 Sep. 2024]

"The Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Citizen Rights in Modern America." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed September 26, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-the-fourth-amendment-on-citizen-rights-in-modern-america/

"The Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Citizen Rights in Modern America," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-the-fourth-amendment-on-citizen-rights-in-modern-america/. [Accessed: 26-Sep-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Citizen Rights in Modern America . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-the-fourth-amendment-on-citizen-rights-in-modern-america/ [Accessed: 26-Sep-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Examples >
• Essay Topics

Essays on 4th Amendment

23 samples on this topic

On this website, we've put together a database of free paper samples regarding 4th Amendment. The idea is to provide you with a sample similar to your 4th Amendment essay topic so that you could have a closer look at it in order to get a clear idea of what a top-notch academic work should look like. You are also advised to use the best 4th Amendment writing practices displayed by expert authors and, eventually, create a top-notch paper of your own.

However, if crafting 4th Amendment papers completely by yourself is not an option at this point, WowEssays.com essay writer service might still be able to help you out. For instance, our authors can create a unique 4th Amendment essay sample solely for you. This model paper on 4th Amendment will be written from scratch and tailored to your custom requirements, reasonably priced, and sent to you within the pre-set period. Choose your writer and buy custom essay now!

Good Excluding The Exclusionary Rule Essay Example

Search and seizure, arrest and interrogation: free sample essay to follow, project 1: a sample essay for inspiration & mimicking.

Can you (or Mr. Youprop’s Supervisor) search Youprop’s personal vehicle parked in the Company lot for digital evidence?

Expertly Written Research Paper On Mapp V. Ohio To Follow

America the “land of the free” essays example, free essay about the fourth amendment of the us constitution, free research paper on challenging section ‘b’ of the baltimore airport regulation, the 4th amendment after 9/11 research paper, free the fourth amendment in the 21st century critical thinking sample, sample essay on criminal law foundations evaluation, example of human resource management research paper.

Poor Performer Evaluation

Good Applying The 4th Amendment In The Computer Age Research Paper Example

Essay on lower court ruling- while trial of this case, lower court considered four factors, free case study about facts of the case in summary.

Graham v. Conner 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

Bill Of Rights: Amendments To The American Constitution Essay Sample

The Bill of Rights is a collection of the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution. The rights protect the liberty, natural rights and the property of American citizens (Vile, 2010). The following is an analysis of three of the amendments and a reviewing of one of the amendments.

Amendment 1: Freedoms, Petitions and Assembly

Free Essay On 4th Amendment

Constitutional law: search and seizure case study examples, probable cause and criminal procedure essay examples.

Probable Cause and Criminal Procedure

The GPS Act Would Safeguard the Rights of the Innocent U.S. News

New technologies are improving our quality of life but there are also issues surrounding their indiscriminate use, especially when used in the course of law enforcement. One application that is causing a great deal of controversy is the Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking technology that allows real-time management, monitoring, and protection of data and personal property. Unfortunately, these technologies can also be used to track private citizens without their knowledge.

The Exclusionary Rule Research Paper Sample

The Exclusionary Rule

“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.” The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Free Essay On Common Law Background Of The Fourth Amendment

Common Law Background of the Fourth Amendment

Semayne’s Case 5 Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Amendment — An Overview of The Fourth Amendment

An Overview of The Fourth Amendment

• Categories: Amendment

About this sample

Words: 461 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 461 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 609 words

3 pages / 1336 words

2 pages / 1081 words

2 pages / 789 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Amendments to the United States Constitution have played a significant role in shaping the nation's laws and rights. The 28th Amendment, a proposed addition to the Constitution, has sparked debates and discussions among [...]

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This fundamental right plays a [...]

For a democracy to function effectively, it requires a well-defined system for creating, amending, and enacting laws. This intricate process, known as "How a Bill Becomes a Law," is the cornerstone of legislative decision-making [...]

The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, is often hailed as a groundbreaking legal framework that has withstood the test of time. However, its endurance and relevance are not solely derived from its original text but [...]

Since the Government came up with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments it have changed how everyone looks at each other and relationships between the Whites and African Americans. First, in the 13th amendment it states that [...]

Lydia Taft was a wealthy widow, allowed to vote first time in the town meeting in Uxbridge, Massachusetts, in 1756. In the colonial era, no other women are known to have voted. The New Jersey constitution of 1776 emancipated all [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Name Search
• Browse Legal Issues
• Browse Law Firms

Summary of the Fourth Amendment

By Christie Nicholson, J.D. | Legally reviewed by Rhonda Earhart, Esq. | Last reviewed October 13, 2023

Legally Reviewed

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by  FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys  and in accordance with  our editorial standards .

Fact-Checked

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our  contributing authors . We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please  contact an attorney in your area .

In 1788, the government ratified the United States Constitution. This document outlines the rights and obligations of U.S. citizens. Over the years, Congress has approved several amendments to the Constitution.

One of the most sacred protections of the  Bill of Rights  is the  Fourth Amendment . This Amendment protects civilians' rights to liberty, property, and privacy. The Fourth Amendment also protects people from  unreasonable search and seizure .

The following is a summary of the Fourth Amendment, including a brief history, the text of the Amendment itself, and how the Supreme Court defines its protections. This article will also offer examples of case law that explain some of the constitutional law decisions handed down over the years.

Background of the Fourth Amendment

In 1760, when Britain controlled the territories that would become the United States, the crown increased its control over trade by issuing " writs of assistance ." Colonial smugglers were trading with and enriching the enemies of England. Their smuggled goods avoided taxation, which shortchanged the English treasury.

As a result, the British implemented the "writs of assistance" as a blanket warrant to enter any ship, building, or home to search (and seize, if necessary) any suspicious goods in colonial ports.

This action angered many colonists who saw it as an overreach — an "unreasonable" search and seizure. Several states instituted protections against these unreasonable searches and seizures in their constitutions before ratifying the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

The courts first said the Fourth Amendment related to evidence in a criminal matter in  Boyd v. United States  in 1886. Interestingly, the Fourth Amendment did not initially apply to the states. This only happened once it was incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. The landmark Supreme Court case on this point was  Mapp v. Ohio   in 1961.

The Fourth Amendment is very brief. Despite its importance, it's only one sentence long. It has two clauses: the "unreasonable search and seizure" clause and the "warrants" clause.

The text of the Fourth Amendment reads as follows:

" 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."

When John Adams, James Madison, and the other creators of the Constitution first drafted the Bill of Rights, they had no idea how the criminal justice system would change. When the states ratified the Constitution, the courts followed common law, not federal and state statutes.

Over the decades, the courts have continued to provide more details about how and when these protections apply. The courts must protect national security and other government interests, but they must also ensure that the courts afford defendants due process. They also demand law enforcement officials act in good faith when conducting searches, seizures, and lawful arrests.

Uncertainty Over the Text

Although ratification of the Fourth Amendment answered any lingering questions about the validity of the writs of assistance in the United States, the Fourth Amendment text raised questions of its own.

There was great debate over the intended meaning of the terms "unreasonable," " search or seizure ," "warrant," "particularity," "oath or affirmation," and " probable cause ." Congress also questioned the scope of protection offered for "houses, papers, and effects."

The U.S. Supreme Court, lower federal courts, district courts, appellate courts, and state courts have spent more than 230 years grappling with the questions raised by the Fourth Amendment's text and continue to do so as new cases come before them. For example, consider the challenges presented by new technology — thermal imaging, drone technology, metadata, etc. There are always new boundaries to explore.

Over the years, courts have clarified the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that people have a  reasonable expectation of privacy  in their bodies, clothing, and personal belongings. Similarly, homeowners have a privacy interest that extends from their homes to the surrounding area, called curtilage.

Deciding where to draw the line on privacy and determining how to apply the rights to criminal procedure are still debated by state courts and the Supreme Court today. FindLaw has a more extensive discussion if you want to learn more about court decisions about  Fourth Amendment protections .

What Is a Search and Seizure?

When most people hear the phrase "search and seizure," they envision somebody coming into their home and searching for proof that they engaged in criminal activity. But when the Constitution protects people against unreasonable search and seizure, it refers to any action by a law enforcement officer that involves a search of your person or property.

For example, if you are walking down the street and a police officer stops you and frisks you for weapons, that is a search. If they take any items during the search, it is a seizure.

A search and seizure also happens when a police officer enters your home or business and searches for items within the structure.

According to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, any search and seizure must be reasonable and justified.

Question of Reasonableness

When a law enforcement officer searches for your home or person, they must do so in a reasonable manner. They must limit their search to places that reasonably contain the object they are searching for.

When the court determines whether a  search and seizure  was reasonable, it will ask if a reasonable person would have believed that a crime had happened. It will also consider if a reasonable person, given the circumstances, would think that an instrument of the alleged crime happened in the place to be searched.

Probable Cause

Before a police officer can execute a search and seizure, they must determine that probable cause exists. Probable cause requires the following:

• Law enforcement officials have a reason to believe that a crime happened, and
• The person to be searched or arrested committed the crime, or that evidence of the crime is at the location to be searched

The police officer must have more than mere suspicion that a crime took place. They must make their decision based on facts and knowledge, that is:

• Articulable

When a judge considers whether a search was reasonable, they must consider the totality of the circumstances. They must examine what the police officer knew during the search and seizure. They must also ask themselves if a reasonable person, given the same facts and knowledge, would have believed a crime happened and that the person arrested committed it. The officer must lay these facts out for the magistrate upon issuance of the warrant.

Reasonable Suspicion Is Not Enough

The Supreme Court clarified that law enforcement needs more than mere suspicion before they search. This is especially true for warrantless searches. The police officer must have the knowledge and facts necessary to support a finding of probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion is a standard slightly below probable cause. According to the courts, reasonable suspicion exists when a police officer has a reasonable and objective belief that a suspect committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime.

This is the standard the Supreme Court has ascribed to "stop and frisk" situations.

Search Warrant Requirements

Almost all searches and seizures need a warrant. In nearly all cases, the police must have either a search warrant or an arrest warrant signed by a judge. The search warrant must specify that probable cause exists. It must also describe the facts surrounding the execution of the warrant.

There are certain situations in which a police officer or other member of law enforcement may execute a search and seizure without a warrant. These situations include:

• Brief stop (stop and frisk)
• Evidence of crime in plain view
• Exigent circumstances

If the police conduct a warrantless search, they must justify their actions to the court. Your criminal law attorney can also challenge the search, arguing that the police violated your Fourth Amendment rights.

Consensual Search

Sometimes, the police receive consent to search a home, building, person, or vehicle. The person who consents to the search must have clear authority. For example, if a police officer knocks on a door and the person who answers confirms that they live there, the officer may gain consent from that person.

If the officer reasonably believes the person who gives consent has the power to consent, they can engage in a warrantless search. If the resident refuses to consent, the police must get a warrant. But, the officer is not required to tell the homeowner, resident, or guest they can deny consent.

Stop and Frisk

Over the years, many defendants have complained that the police stopped them and searched them without probable cause. In  Terry v. Ohio , the Supreme Court determined that the police do not need probable cause to stop and frisk a suspect.

The officer must only have reasonable suspicion that a suspect committed or is about to commit a crime. Police must show they have the facts and knowledge to support their suspicion.

During a stop and frisk, the officer may only search the suspect for weapons. They are not allowed to search them for drugs or other paraphernalia.

Plain View Doctrine

If a police officer sees an item in plain view, they have the right to seize it. According to the Supreme Court in  Harris v. U.S ., as long as the officer has a right to be where they view the object, they can legally seize it.

The courts base this rule on the common-sense principle that you cannot expect people to ignore what is right in front of their faces. The officer does not need probable cause to seize evidence found in plain view.

Exigent Circumstances

The courts have held that the police can execute warrantless search and seizure under exigent circumstances. These circumstances exist in the following situations:

• The suspect may escape
• To prevent harm to a police officer or others
• To preserve evidence that the suspect or related party may destroy
• Any other circumstances that may frustrate the ability of law enforcement to carry out their legitimate duties

Suppose the police conduct a warrantless search of your person or property, and you do not feel they had justification to do so. You should  contact a criminal law attorney  immediately. This is especially true if the police arrest you after the search.

Arrest vs. Detainment

Legally, an arrest is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. But, if the police merely detain you, it may not constitute a seizure. Thankfully, ample case law addresses the difference between arrest and detainment.

Detainment is when police stop a suspect and temporarily detain them for questioning or an investigation. For example, imagine that somebody robbed a convenience store. You are walking by the store when the police arrive. If they stop you to ask if you saw anything or participated in the robbery, that is detainment.

When the police detain a person, they do not need probable cause. They only need a reasonable suspicion that the person participated in the crime or had pertinent information about it.

The police make an actual arrest when they take you into custody based on the belief that you committed a crime. The officers typically handcuff you, read your Miranda rights, and take you to the police station or local jail. The police must have probable cause to arrest a suspect.

Vehicle Searches

One situation that has raised many questions happens when the police search your vehicle.  Vehicle searches  have seen a lot of attention from the courts. These searches are subject to the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment. But this does not mean the police need a warrant to search your car, truck, or SUV.

Police may do a warrantless search of your vehicle in certain situations. These include:

• You consent to the search
• The officers have probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle
• Evidence of a crime is in plain view
• The officer has reason to believe there is a weapon in the vehicle that threatens the safety of the officers or others
• A search incident to an arrest

You have the right to refuse to let the police search your car. Just know that they may proceed with the search anyway and seize any evidence they find. Your criminal law attorney can challenge the search later. The court will deem any evidence recovered in an unlawful search inadmissible.

The rules for searching a vehicle are less strict than those for searches of a home or other building. People expect less privacy in their cars than in their homes or businesses.

Electronic Surveillance and Wiretaps

Wiretapping is an example of a search and seizure. Technically, any information taken through a wiretap or other eavesdropping mechanism is evidence, and the state can use it against you. But, there are strict rules about electronic surveillance and wiretapping.

Not only are there federal wiretapping laws, but almost all states also have wiretap laws. For example, according to  New York Penal Code Section 250 , it is illegal to use a mechanical wiretap unless you have the consent of at least one of the parties to the conversation. This is the law in most states. In some states, you need the consent of both parties to record a telephone conversation.

If the state launches a criminal prosecution against you and introduces evidence recovered as a result of electronic surveillance or wiretapping, your attorney can challenge the admissibility of that evidence.

Exclusionary Rule

The point of requiring law enforcement to refrain from engaging in illegal searches and seizures is to protect would-be defendants. If the state uncovers evidence in an unlawful investigation, it cannot use that evidence in court. (This does not necessarily mean the state cannot use this evidence to secure a grand jury indictment).

Under the exclusionary rule, the judge must exclude evidence recovered during an illegal search and seizure. The rationale is that had the police officers honored your Fourth Amendment rights, they would not have found the evidence in the first place.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

One doctrine that falls under the exclusionary rule is the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine. According to this rule, the courts must exclude any evidence that is a by-product of an illegal search.

The best way to describe the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine is to envision a tree. The trunk and main branches represent the illegal evidence found during the initial search. The tree's smaller branches, leaves, and fruits are tainted or poisoned. Police would only have uncovered this evidence if law enforcement had performed the illegal search. So, the judge must throw out the fruit on that tree.

Protect Your Fourth Amendment Rights: Talk to an Attorney

Police can't search you and seize your property whenever they please. But sometimes, a search isn't considered a "search" under constitutional protections. At the same time, the law doesn't give members of law enforcement the right to violate your constitutional rights.

If you believe you have been the victim of a Fourth Amendment violation, contact an experienced  criminal defense attorney  near you today.

Can I Solve This on My Own or Do I Need an Attorney?

• Complex criminal defense situations usually require a lawyer
• Defense attorneys can help protect your rights
• A lawyer can seek to reduce or eliminate criminal penalties

Get tailored advice and ask your legal questions. Many attorneys offer free consultations.

If you need an attorney, find one right now.

Helpful Links

• Expunging Criminal Records
• List of Criminal Charges
• Rights for Suspects

Attorney Directory

• Criminal Defense Attorneys
• DUI and DWI Attorneys
• Drug Crime Attorneys
• Federal and White Collar Crime Attorneys
• Sex Crime Attorneys
• Traffic Ticket Attorneys

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Contact a qualified attorney for legal services focused on criminal charges.

Enter information. (Required)

Find Help for These Areas:

• Criminal Defense
• DUI and DWI Charges
• Traffic Tickets

Thank you for subscribing!

FindLaw Newsletters Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life

The email address cannot be subscribed. Please try again.

Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.

Find a Lawyer

• Search Legal Resources
• Find Cases and Laws

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• Why was the Bill of Rights added?
• How was the Bill of Rights added to the U.S. Constitution?
• Does the Bill of Rights apply to the states?

Fourth Amendment

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Khan Academy - The Fourth Amendment
• Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Fourth Amendment
• CORE - The Background of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Fourth Amendment , amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States , part of the Bill of Rights , that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment , see below .

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law , the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure ?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [1953–69]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (1986–2005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview
• Constitution 101 Curriculum
• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Constitution 101 With Khan Academy

Explore our new course that empowers students to learn the constitution at their own pace..

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, interpretation & debate, the fourth amendment, matters of debate, common interpretation, the future of the fourth amendment, what the fourth amendment fundamentally requires.

by Barry Friedman

Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law and Affiliated Professor of Politics at New York Univeristy; Director of the Policing Project at NYU’s School of Law

by Orin Kerr

Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

Imagine you’re driving a car, and a police officer spots you and pulls you over for speeding. He orders you out of the car. Maybe he wants to place you under arrest. Or maybe he wants to search your car for evidence of a crime. Can the officer do that? 

The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that gives the answer. According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes. 

The Fourth Amendment has been debated frequently during the last several years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. The federal government has conducted bulk collection of Americans’ telephone and Internet connections as part of the War on Terror. Many municipal police forces have engaged in aggressive use of “stop and frisk.” There have been a number of highly-publicized police-citizen encounters in which the police ended up shooting a civilian. There is also concern about the use of aerial surveillance, whether by piloted aircraft or drones.

The application of the Fourth Amendment to all these activities would have surprised those who drafted it, and not only because they could not imagine the modern technologies like the Internet and drones. They also were not familiar with organized police forces like we have today. Policing in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a responsibility of the citizenry, which participated in “night watches.” Other than that, there was only a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today. 

The primary concerns of the generation that ratified the Fourth Amendment were “general warrants” and “writs of assistance.” Famous incidents on both sides of the Atlantic gave rise to placing the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. In Britain, the Crown employed “general warrants” to go after political enemies, leading to the famous decisions in Wilkes v. Wood (1763) and Entick v. Carrington (1765). General warrants allowed the Crown’s messengers to search without any cause to believe someone had committed an offense. In those cases the judges decided that such warrants violated English common law. In the colonies the Crown used the writs of assistance—like general warrants, but often unbounded by time restraints—to search for goods on which taxes had not been paid. James Otis challenged the writs in a Boston court; though he lost, some such as John Adams attribute this legal battle as the spark that led to the Revolution. Both controversies led to the famous notion that a person’s home is their castle, not easily invaded by the government.

Today the Fourth Amendment is understood as placing restraints on the government any time it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property. The Fourth Amendment also provides that “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.” The idea is that to avoid the evils of general warrants, each search or seizure should be cleared in advance by a judge, and that to get a warrant the government must show “probable cause”—a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity—to justify the search or seizure. 

To the extent that a warrant is required in theory before police can search, there are so many exceptions that in practice warrants rarely are obtained. Police can search automobiles without warrants, they can detain people on the street without them, and they can always search or seize in an emergency without going to a judge.

The way that the Fourth Amendment most commonly is put into practice is in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court decided in the mid-twentieth century that if the police seize evidence as part of an illegal search, the evidence cannot be admitted into court. This is called the “exclusionary rule.” It is controversial because in most cases evidence is being tossed out even though it shows the person is guilty and, as a result of the police conduct, they might avoid conviction. “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered,” declared Benjamin Cardozo (a famous judge and ultimately Supreme Court justice). But, responded another Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, “If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.”

One of the difficult questions today is what constitutes a “search”? If the police standing in Times Square in New York watched a person planting a bomb in plain daylight, we would not think they needed a warrant or any cause. But what about installing closed circuit TV cameras on poles, or flying drones over backyards, or gathering evidence that you have given to a third party such as an Internet provider or a banker?

Another hard question is when a search is acceptable when the government has no suspicion that a person has done something wrong. Lest the answer seem to be “never,” think of airport security. Surely it is okay for the government to screen people getting on airplanes, yet the idea is as much to deter people from bringing weapons as it is to catch them—there is no “cause,” probable or otherwise, to think anyone has done anything wrong. This is the same sort of issue with bulk data collection, and possibly with gathering biometric information.

What should be clear by now is that advancing technology and the many threats that face society add up to a brew in which the Fourth Amendment will continue to play a central role. 

The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.  

The Fourth Amendment was written over two hundred years ago. But today’s crimes often involve computers and the Internet, requiring the police to collect digital evidence and analyze it to solve crimes.

The major question is, how much power should the police have to collect this data? What is an unreasonable search and seizure on the Internet? 

Consider the example of a Facebook account. If you log in to Facebook, your use of the account sends a tremendous amount of information to Facebook. Facebook keeps records of everything. What you post, what messages you send, what pictures you “like,” even what pages you view. Facebook gets it all, and it keeps records of everything you do. Now imagine that the police come to Facebook and want records of a particular user. The police think the suspect used Facebook to commit the crime or shared evidence of the crime using the site. Maybe the suspect was cyberstalking and harassing a victim on Facebook. Or maybe the suspect is a drug dealer who was exchanging messages with another drug dealer planning a future crime. Or perhaps the suspect committed a burglary, and he posted pictures of the burglary for all of his Facebook friends to see. 

Here’s the hard question: What limits does the Fourth Amendment impose on the government getting access to the account records? For example, is it a Fourth Amendment “search” or “seizure” for the government to get what a person posted on his Facebook wall for all of his friends to see? Is it a search or seizure to get the messages that the suspect sent? How about records of what page the suspect viewed? And if it is a search or seizure, how much can the government seize with a warrant? Can the government get access to all of the account records? Only some of the account records? 

The courts have only begun to answer these questions, and it will be up to future courts to figure out what the Fourth Amendment requires. As more people spend much of their lives online, the stakes of answering these questions correctly becomes higher and higher.   

In my view, courts should try to answer these questions by translating the traditional protections of the Fourth Amendment from the physical world to the networked world. In the physical world, the Fourth Amendment strikes a balance. The government is free to do many things without constitutional oversight. The police can watch people in the public street or watch a suspect in a public place. They can follow a car as it drives down the street. On the other hand, the police need cause to stop people, and they need a warrant to enter private places like private homes.  

The goal for interpreting the Fourth Amendment should be to strike that same balance in the online setting. Just like in the physical world, the police should be able to collect some evidence without restriction to ensure that they can investigate crimes. And just like in the physical world, there should be limits on what the government can do to ensure that the police do not infringe upon important civil liberties.

A second important area is the future of the exclusionary rule, the rule that evidence unconstitutionally obtained cannot be used in court. The history of the exclusionary rule is a history of change. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the exclusionary rule. Since the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court has cut back on when the exclusionary rule applies. 

The major disagreement is over whether and how the exclusionary rule should apply when the police violate the Fourth Amendment, but do so in “good faith,” such as when the law is unclear or the violation is only technical. In the last decade, a majority of the Justices have expanded the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. A central question is whether the good faith exception will continue to expand, and if so, how far. 

In the Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment, there are a lot of cross-cutting arguments. 

For example, sometimes the Justices say that there is a strong preference for government agents to obtain warrants, and that searches without warrants are presumptively invalid. At other times they say warrants are unnecessary, and the only requirement is that searches be “reasonable.” At times the Justices say probable cause is required to support a search; at others they say probable cause is not an “irreducible minimum.”

This is your Fourth Amendment. It describes “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It is important for each American to focus on some basics and decide—separate and apart from what the Justices say—what this vital amendment means.

People say that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, but that trivializes it. In this world you give up a lot of privacy, whether you wish to or not. Internet cookies, or data stored in web browsers, are just one example. But the Internet companies are not going to come take you away. The government might. What the Fourth Amendment protects is the right of the people to be secure. The Fourth Amendment is the means of keeping the government out of our lives and our property unless it has good justification.

In evaluating how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, it is essential to bear in mind the vast changes in policing since the time it was ratified. Whereas policing once was reactive, tasked with identifying and catching criminals, today it has become proactive and is based in deterrence. Before, policing was mostly based on “suspicion,” it was aimed at people for whom there was cause to believe they had violated or were about to violate the law. Today, policing is aimed at all of us—from red light cameras to bulk data collection by intelligence agencies to airport security. 

There are some basic principles that should govern searches and seizures. 

First, no member of the Executive branch should be permitted to intervene in our lives without the say-so of at least one other branch. This is fundamental, and all the more important when that Executive actor engages in surveillance of the citizenry and can use force and coercion against them.

Second, a central purpose of the Fourth Amendment is preventing arbitrary or unjustified intrusions into the lives and property of citizens. 

In light of these basic principles, certain interpretations of the Fourth Amendment follow:

No search or seizure is “reasonable” if it is not based on either legislative authorization or pursuant to rules that have some form of democratic say in their making. The police can write rules—all other agencies of executive government do—but absent a critical need for secrecy those rules should be public and responsive to public wishes.

Second, warrants are to be preferred. Policing agencies are mission-oriented. We want them to be—they have a vital role protecting public safety. But because they are mission-oriented, warrants should be obtained in advance of searching whenever possible so that a neutral judge can assess the need to intrude on people’s lives.

Third, we should distinguish between searches aimed at suspects and those aimed at society in general. When there is a particular suspect, the protections of a warrant and probable cause apply. But those protections make no sense when we are all the target of policing. In the latter instance the most important protection is that policing not discriminate among us. For example, at airport security all must be screened the same unless and until there is suspicion—“cause”— to single someone out.

Finally, often today’s policing singles out a particular group. Examples include profiling (based on race, religion, or something else) or subjecting only workers in some agencies to drug tests. When policing is group-based, the proper clause of the Constitution to govern is the Equal Protection Clause. When discriminatory searching or seizing occurs, the government should have to prove two things: that the group it is selecting for unfavorable treatment truly is more likely to contain people worthy of the government’s attention, and that the incidence of problematic behavior is sufficiently great in that group to justify burdening everyone. Otherwise, the government should go back to either searching individuals based on suspicion, or search us all.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Amdt1.7.12.3 Access and Editorial Discretion in Cable Television

Government attempts to extend access rights to cable television systems have faced First Amendment challenges. In Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC , the Supreme Court upheld federal statutory requirements that cable systems carry local broadcast television stations. 1 Footnote 520 U.S. 180 (1997) . The Court determined in an earlier case that the se must-carry requirements were content-neutral 2 Footnote Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC , 512 U.S. 622, 645 (1994) . Four Justices determined that the requirements were content-based. Id. at 676 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). and the refore would be subject to intermediate scrutiny, which requires that a law not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to fur the r the government’s legitimate interests . 3 Footnote Id. at 662 (majority opinion) (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism , 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989) ). For more discussion of this case, see Cable Television. In determining that intermediate scrutiny applied, the Court rejected analogies to the right to reply law struck down in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo , holding that the federal must-carry rules did not require cable operators to carry programming based on the content of operators’ existing programming and were unlikely to force cable operators to alter the ir own messages. 4 Footnote Turner , 512 U.S. at 655 . The Court also distinguished cable television from newspapers based on technical features of cable as a medium that allow a cable operator to exercise far greater control over access to the medium. Id. at 656 . For more discussion of Tornillo and the general right of editorial discretion, see Overview of Access and Editorial Discretion. The Court similarly noted that viewers were unlikely to assume that the messages conveyed by broadcast programming reflected the views of the cable operator. 5 Footnote Turner , 512 U.S. at 655–56 . The Court has suggested in several non-media cases that compelling an entity to provide a forum for o the r speakers may not violate the First Amendment if, among o the r factors, the views of the speakers are unlikely to be attributed to the entity. See, e.g. , PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins , 447 U.S. 74, 87 (1980) (holding that shopping center owner’s free speech rights were not violated by state constitutional provisions protecting right of individuals to circulate petitions in shopping center); Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Inst. Rights, Inc. , 547 U.S. 47, 63 (2006) (holding that funding condition for universities requiring equal access for military recruiters did not violate free speech rights of universities). Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court held that the must-carry requirements were justified by a government interest in preserving a multiplicity of broadcast sources. 6 Footnote Turner , 520 U.S. at 213 .

As with broadcast television, some private parties have argued that the First Amendment rights of the public require a right of access to cable television systems. 7 Footnote Cf. Columbia Broad. Sys. Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm. , 412 U.S. 94, 98 (1973) . For more discussion of this case and issues relating to access to broadcast systems, see Access and Editorial Discretion in Broadcast Media. One hurdle to this the ory is that the First Amendment forbids only government from abridging a right to free speech—it does not generally require private parties to respect o the rs’ free speech rights. 8 Footnote See Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. Pollak , 343 U.S. 451, 461 (1952) . See generally State Action Doctrine and Free Speech , >https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-2-4/ALDE_00013541 . Though this state action issue was raised in Democratic National Committee , discussed in a previous essay, the Court in that case was divided as to whe the r a broadcaster’s decision to deny access to potential advertisers would occasion a First Amendment analysis. 9 Footnote Compare Democratic Nat’l Comm. , 412 U.S. at 121 (plurality opinion) (determining that broadcaster’s policy was not state action), with id. at 148 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (determining that the case could be resolved without reaching the state action issue and the refore refrain[ing] from deciding it ), and id. at 180–81 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (determining that First Amendment should apply to broadcaster’s policy given indicia of government involvement with broadcasting). In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck , the Court considered whe the r an operator of public access channels on a cable television system violated the First Amendment when it restricted the access of individuals who had produced a film critical of the operator. 10 Footnote 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1926 (2019) . For more discussion of this case, see State Action Doctrine and Free Speech , >https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-2-4/ALDE_00013541 . The Court noted that while the First Amendment may constrain the ability of a state actor to exclude speakers, a private entity may freely exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in a forum that entity provides. 11 Footnote Id. at 1930 ; cf. Ark. Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes , 523 U.S. 666, 676–81 (1998) (applying public forum principles to a debate broadcast on a state-operated television station, though ultimately concluding that the debate was not a public forum). Writing for five members of the Court, Justice Kavanaugh observed that under the Court’s precedents, a private entity may be treated as a state actor if it exercises functions that the government [has] traditionally and exclusively performed. 12 Footnote Halleck , 139 S. Ct. at 1929 . The Court found that operating public access channels on a cable system was not traditionally and exclusively performed by government, given the history of such channels being operated by private entities. 13 Footnote Id. at 1929–30 . In reaching this conclusion, the Court acknowledged a range of o the r private establishments that might offer space for speech—from community bulletin boards to open mic nights 14 Footnote Id. —and opined that subjecting the se establishments to First Amendment constraints would hinder the exercise of what the y deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. 15 Footnote Id. at 1931 . The Court the reby reaffirmed the principle that the First Amendment may not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on the ir property. 16 Footnote Id.

•   Jump to essay-1 520 U.S. 180 (1997) .
•   Jump to essay-2 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC , 512 U.S. 622, 645 (1994) . Four Justices determined that the requirements were content-based. Id. at 676 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
•   Jump to essay-3 Id. at 662 (majority opinion) (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism , 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989) ). For more discussion of this case, see Cable Television.
•   Jump to essay-4 Turner , 512 U.S. at 655 . The Court also distinguished cable television from newspapers based on technical features of cable as a medium that allow a cable operator to exercise far greater control over access to the medium. Id. at 656 . For more discussion of Tornillo and the general right of editorial discretion, see Overview of Access and Editorial Discretion.
•   Jump to essay-5 Turner , 512 U.S. at 655–56 . The Court has suggested in several non-media cases that compelling an entity to provide a forum for o the r speakers may not violate the First Amendment if, among o the r factors, the views of the speakers are unlikely to be attributed to the entity. See, e.g. , PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins , 447 U.S. 74, 87 (1980) (holding that shopping center owner’s free speech rights were not violated by state constitutional provisions protecting right of individuals to circulate petitions in shopping center); Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Inst. Rights, Inc. , 547 U.S. 47, 63 (2006) (holding that funding condition for universities requiring equal access for military recruiters did not violate free speech rights of universities).
•   Jump to essay-6 Turner , 520 U.S. at 213 .
•   Jump to essay-7 Cf. Columbia Broad. Sys. Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm. , 412 U.S. 94, 98 (1973) . For more discussion of this case and issues relating to access to broadcast systems, see Access and Editorial Discretion in Broadcast Media.
•   Jump to essay-8 See Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. Pollak , 343 U.S. 451, 461 (1952) . See generally State Action Doctrine and Free Speech , >https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-2-4/ALDE_00013541 .
•   Jump to essay-9 Compare Democratic Nat’l Comm. , 412 U.S. at 121 (plurality opinion) (determining that broadcaster’s policy was not state action), with id. at 148 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (determining that the case could be resolved without reaching the state action issue and the refore refrain[ing] from deciding it ), and id. at 180–81 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (determining that First Amendment should apply to broadcaster’s policy given indicia of government involvement with broadcasting).
•   Jump to essay-10 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1926 (2019) . For more discussion of this case, see State Action Doctrine and Free Speech , >https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-2-4/ALDE_00013541 .
•   Jump to essay-11 Id. at 1930 ; cf. Ark. Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes , 523 U.S. 666, 676–81 (1998) (applying public forum principles to a debate broadcast on a state-operated television station, though ultimately concluding that the debate was not a public forum).
•   Jump to essay-12 Halleck , 139 S. Ct. at 1929 .
•   Jump to essay-13 Id. at 1929–30 .
•   Jump to essay-14 Id.
•   Jump to essay-15 Id. at 1931 .
•   Jump to essay-16 Id.