Understanding the Fourth Amendment Rights

Jan 23, 2025

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

Overview

  • Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
  • Does not protect against all searches and seizures, only those deemed unreasonable.
  • Reasonableness determined by balancing individual rights vs. government interests, e.g., public safety.

Factors Affecting Protection

  • Location: Level of protection varies based on where the search/seizure occurs.
  • Case Reference: Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Searches in the Home

  • Searches without a warrant are typically unreasonable (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)).
  • Exceptions
    • Consent given (Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)).
    • Incident to a lawful arrest (United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)).
    • Probable cause and exigent circumstances (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)).
    • Items in plain view (Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985)).

Searches of a Person

  • Officers can stop and investigate suspicious conduct (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)).

Searches in Schools

  • School officials do not need a warrant; searches just need to be reasonable (New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)).

Searches of Vehicles

  • Probable Cause: Allows search of any part of the vehicle for evidence (Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009)).
  • Traffic Stops: Can occur with reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or crime (Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)).
  • Pat-Downs: Permitted during lawful stops (Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)).
  • Drug-Sniffing Dogs: Do not require suspicion during valid stops (Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)).

Special Law Enforcement Concerns

  • Highway stops can be justified without individualized suspicion (Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)).
  • Routine border searches are permissible (United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985)).
  • Sobriety checkpoints are allowed (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)).
  • Checkpoints for crime investigation allowed if brief (Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)).
  • Checkpoints for drug discovery are not allowed (City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)).

Activities for Students

  • Simulations and activities focus on Bill of Rights cases for teens.

Disclaimer

  • Educational resources provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only, not legal guidance.

Related Links

Resources