Search And Seizure Laws
Search and Seizure Laws: Overview
Search and seizure laws protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, primarily governed by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment states:
“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…”
This means:
Searches and seizures must be reasonable.
Generally, authorities need a warrant, supported by probable cause, to conduct a search.
There are exceptions (e.g., consent, exigent circumstances).
1. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Key Principle: Exclusionary Rule applied to states
Facts: Police in Cleveland forcibly entered Dollree Mapp’s home without a proper warrant, searching for a bombing suspect but found obscene materials instead.
Issue: Can illegally obtained evidence be used in state courts?
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state courts.
Significance: This extended the exclusionary rule (previously applied only federally) to state prosecutions. It protects against unlawful searches by ensuring illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible.
2. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Key Principle: Stop and frisk doctrine; reasonable suspicion
Facts: A police officer observed suspicious behavior (Terry and others were casing a store). The officer stopped and frisked them without a warrant.
Issue: Was the stop and frisk constitutional without probable cause or a warrant?
Ruling: The Court held that a brief stop and frisk is constitutional if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in criminal activity and may be armed.
Significance: Created the “Terry stop” rule, allowing limited searches (pat-downs) based on reasonable suspicion, a lower standard than probable cause.
3. Katz v. United States (1967)
Key Principle: Expectation of privacy and electronic surveillance
Facts: Katz was convicted based on evidence from a wiretap placed on a public phone booth without a warrant.
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment protect people, or just places? Is wiretapping without a warrant unconstitutional?
Ruling: The Court ruled that Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth, so the wiretap constituted an illegal search.
Significance: This case shifted the focus from physical intrusion to privacy expectations, establishing that Fourth Amendment protections apply to people, not just places.
4. Chimel v. California (1969)
Key Principle: Scope of a search incident to an arrest
Facts: Police arrested Chimel in his home with a warrant for his arrest but no warrant to search his home. They searched the entire house and found incriminating evidence.
Issue: Was the warrantless search of the entire house legal?
Ruling: The Court ruled that police may only search the area within the immediate control of the arrested person (“wingspan”) without a search warrant.
Significance: This case limited the scope of a search incident to arrest, requiring more specific boundaries on warrantless searches.
5. Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Key Principle: Totality of circumstances test for probable cause
Facts: Police received an anonymous tip that the Gateses were involved in drug trafficking and obtained a warrant based on that.
Issue: Was the anonymous tip enough to establish probable cause?
Ruling: The Court established the “totality of the circumstances” test to evaluate probable cause instead of rigid rules.
Significance: This made probable cause determination more flexible, allowing courts to consider all factors together rather than requiring strict guidelines.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Mapp v. Ohio | Exclusionary Rule in state courts | Illegally obtained evidence excluded |
| Terry v. Ohio | Stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion | Limited searches allowed without probable cause |
| Katz v. U.S. | Reasonable expectation of privacy | Protects privacy beyond physical intrusion |
| Chimel v. California | Limits search incident to arrest | Warrantless searches confined to immediate area |
| Illinois v. Gates | Totality of circumstances for probable cause | Flexible probable cause standard |
RELATED Blog
comments