Constitutional-Literacy-14

=**Section 14: The 4th Amendment**=

If you were to ask the Founding Fathers what abuses of rights they thought were most egregious, one would have been writs of assistance – general search warrants for officials to come in at any time to look for smuggled goods to avoid taxes. When challenged in the courts, James Otis argued for the government and rather than defend the warrants, he resigned his office and sided with the colonists fighting the writs. He said “a man’s house is his castle.”

This is the purpose of the 4th amendment - to keep from general writs of assistance. The 4th amendment reads "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.

Read the following story. Two-year-old Joanie lives on a six-acre lot at the end of a no outlet road. As she does every day she was changing to take a bath. However, instead of going from her bedroom to the bathroom, she followed the cat outside. Both Joanie and the cat were wearing the same amount of clothing. She was outside no more than a minute as her parent made sure she was right back inside. She was not near a road and was in no danger whatsoever. However, the family was reported for child abuse. A bus driver turns around near their house. A social worker came demanding entry to interview Joanie to see why she was outside without clothes on. It's important to note that two-year-olds don't exactly give accurate information. The social worker thought reliable information could be gotten from a child. The court ruled that the family had to let the social worker in after the family had said no and it went to court. On appeal, the judge asked the counsel (for the family) "don't we need to go in the house since we don't know what's going on in there?" That's EXACTLY the point - by that logic, authorities can go into any home at any time since authorities don't know what's going on in anyone's home at any time. This is what the 4th amendment was intended to guard against - that type of logic.


 * Comprehension Question: What logic does the 4th amendment guard against? Is this good or bad in your opinion?**

The elements of the 4th amendment are that it prohibits (1) unreasonable searches, (2) unreasonable seizures, and (3) warrants not supported by probable cause.

What is a search? In Katz v. United States 1967, a public phone booth was wiretapped and police did not get a warrant before doing this. They caught a person running an illegal gambling organization. The question became was the wiretap a search? The court ruled that the 4th amendment protects people, not places and that a person could expect reasonable expectation of privacy going into a phone booth even though it was a public phone booth and, therefore, a warrant was needed. So, whenever the government invades an area for which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it has conducted a search.


 * Comprehension Question: What was the key holding in Katz v. United States?**

One place of privacy is your own home, but you can wave this right to privacy by your own conduct. For example, if people on a sidewalk can see through a window that illegal activity is going on, police are allowed to act due to evidence in plain view. This was a ruling in Minnesota v. Carter in which the court ruled that if you leave your curtains open and the police can just look in your windows from the sidewalk, it is not a search and therefore doesn't need a warrant or probable cause. What about with technology? Police have the ability to use infrared technology to see heat waves looking grow lamps typical for marijuana growing and can see through walls, get a warrant, then make an arrest. The question is was this a search? In Kyllo v. United States 2001 the court ruled that this is a search. When police go through walls, they need a warrant. There was a reasonable expectation of privacy within the home. Searches of your home need a warrant through probable cause that wrong doing is being done and the person being searched is the one doing the wrong. Doing wrong is the wording used because the 4th amendment applies not only to criminal cases, but also civil cases.


 * Comprehension Question: What do we learn from Minnesota v. Carter?**


 * Comprehension Question: What do we learn from Kyllo v. United States?**

Consent to search a house doesn't need a warrant. Police or a social worker cannot enter a home without a warrant or probable cause unless the homeowner allows them to come in. There is an exception called the Exigent Circumstances Exception. There must be evidence of exigent circumstances in which an emergency requires immediate action. For example, if a suspect runs into a house and the police are given a report that there is an emergency or if there is a report that someone is in danger. There has to be some evidence of truth to the allegation. This would give probable cause. The police cannot act just because someone called and said there's an emergency. What about an anonymous hotline tip? In Calabretta v. Floyd in 1995 (a case in front of the 9th Circuit Court) the court held that an anonymous tip on its own didn't warrant police entering a home. The overall rule is that the police cannot go into homes without a warrant with the exceptions of consent and evidence of an emergency.


 * Comprehension Question: Overall, when can authorities enter your home?**

There is no balance test. This amendment is as close to original intent as any other part of the Constitution still today. It was meant to protect privacy in the home. We don't know what's going on in your home and the Founding Fathers wanted to keep it that way - that authorities cannot enter homes just because they don't know what's happening in there.


 * Discussion Question: Should people refuse government workers to search their homes (without a warrant or probable cause) if they have nothing to hide? Why?**

**Overall: Summarize the main idea of this section and why it's important.**

Back to the Constitutional Literacy main page