Fourth Amendment : Search And Seizure

963 Words4 Pages
Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791. The Fourth Amendment provides, "[t]he 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." Initially the Fourth Amendment was intended to create a statutory buffer between the U.S. citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement. Today, the general concept and critical goal of the Fourth Amendment is…show more content…
Schools: A warrant is not needed for school officials to search a student who is under their authority. New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Vehicles: A search warrant is not needed: • When an officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). • To conduct a traffic stop when there is reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is occurring. Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984); United States v. Arizona, 534 U.S. 266 (2002). • To pat-down a driver or passenger of the vehicle. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009). • To use a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop. Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). • To justify a highway stop without any individualized suspicion by special law enforcement. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004). • To conduct routine stops and searches at an international border. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985). • To conduct sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). • To set up highway checkpoints to seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004). However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and
Open Document