The Fourth Amendment includes the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.11 min read
"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."
To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable.' See:
In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest.
Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Some examples include:
Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. For example,
The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense. For example:
Nevertheless, everyday 'booking' procedures routinely require even the merely accused to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether investigation of the crime involves fingerprint evidence. See:
Thus, in the fingerprinting context, there exists a constitutionally significant distinction between the gathering of fingerprints from free persons to determine their guilt of an unsolved criminal offense and the gathering of fingerprints for identification purposes from persons within the lawful custody of the state.
The drawing of blood from free persons generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a person has committed a criminal offense and that his blood will reveal evidence relevant to that offense. See: Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-71; U.S. v. Chapel, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. at 5753-54 (9th Cir.'95) (en banc), but the absence of such a warrant does not a fortiori establish a violation of the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that the drawing of blood constitutes only a minimally intrusive search, as in the following cases:
"An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents." Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2 (holding that a warrant was not required in part because "in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program, there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate").
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed and expanded the principle first enunciated in Skinner, stating that, in some contexts, "testing based on 'suspicion' of [wrongful activity] would not be better, but worse than suspicionless testing." Acton, 1995 WL 373274, at *8. In Acton, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a school district's practice of conducting random, suspicionless urine testing of school athletes for drug use. The Court rejected the proposition that the school district could "conduct such testing only if school officials had suspicion that a specific athlete was using drugs, holding that this alternative 'entails substantial difficulties -- if it is indeed practicable at all." Id. Accusatory drug testing would "transform[] the process into a badge of shame" and would increase the risk that school officials would impose testing arbitrarily upon disfavored, but not drug-using, students. Id.
Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has stated its "insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution." Chambers v. Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70). Because "[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our society," searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: "The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained." Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70.
Only when law enforcement faces an exigent circumstance, such as a need to preserve evanescent blood alcohol evidence, and has probable cause to link the sought-after information to a crime under investigation is it constitutional to conduct nonconsensual blood testing without a warrant. Id. at 770-71. Therefore, forced extraction of blood not only 'implicates the Fourth Amendment,' as the majority notes, but also falls squarely within the area of privacy interests for which the traditional probable cause requirement determines reasonableness in the law enforcement context. Forced blood extraction intrudes on the private personal sphere and infringes upon an individual's 'most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.' Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 60 ('85).
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 69 ('66). The Schmerber Court posed two questions:
In answering the first question, the Court recognized that it was 'writ[ing] on a clean slate' regarding the treatment of searches that involve intrusions into the human body. Id. at 767-8. It concluded that such searches require probable cause. Id. at 770-1.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 ('85), recognized that Schmerber's threshold standard was a requirement of probable cause "where intrusions into the human body are concerned," which implicate "deep-rooted expectations of privacy." Id. at 761, 760. The Winston Court then acknowledged "other factors'' [b]eyond these standards that must be considered in determining whether a particular intrusion is reasonable. For instance, whether "the procedure threatens the safety or health of the individual" and "the extent of the intrusion upon the individual's dignitary interests." Id. at 761 (emphasis added).
In regard to the additional 'dignitary' factor (beyond the threshold inquiry of invasion of bodily integrity), the Winston Court noted Schmerber's recognition that blood extraction is not 'an unduly extensive imposition.' Id. at 762. The Court contrasted this lesser bodily invasion, which the Schmerber Court had upheld upon demonstration of probable cause, with the more drastic measure of dangerous surgery to recoup criminal evidence, which the Winston Court concluded would violate the individual's Fourth Amendment rights even when supported by probable cause.
Thus again, the context of the quotation demonstrates that the Court places blood extraction squarely within the probable cause requirement because it is an invasion of bodily integrity, while at the same time acknowledging that it is a less extensive imposition on dignitary interests than surgical removal of a bullet.
The unique situation in which the Supreme Court has approved suspicionless searches in the traditional law enforcement context includes the practice of stopping motorists at sobriety checkpoints. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 ('90). The Sitz Court relied on well-settled law that motorists have a lessened expectation of privacy regarding stops and visual searches of automobiles on the nation's roadways. Id. at 450 (explaining the importance of the context of 'police stops of motorists on public highways'). At these sobriety checkpoints, which motorists may choose to avoid, only the initial brief stop and preliminary questioning may take place without individualized suspicion: "more extensive field sobriety testing" requires justification. Id. at 450-2.
Like the highway sobriety checkpoints, the 'special needs beyond normal law enforcement' rationale supports searches on lesser grounds than probable cause only in a very few, carefully tailored regulatory contexts that do not involve apprehension of criminal perpetrators. See, for example, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 65-66 ('89) (applying the special needs exception to suspicionless quasi-consensual drug testing of Customs Service employees seeking transfer to positions having a direct involvement in drug interdiction).
The special needs exception covers testing which "is not designed to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement [because] . . . results may not be used in criminal prosecution." Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 666 (emphases added). Even so, a search in the special needs context almost always requires individualized suspicion. See the following cases:
Nonetheless, routine searches that intrude into prisoners' bodies without probable cause may be upheld only when the search is undertaken pursuant to a valid prison regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective. For instance:
Individuals have a categorically different and lesser expectation of privacy in their fingerprints, visual images, or voice prints.
The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what 'a person knowingly exposes to the public'. Like a man's facial characteristics, or handwriting, his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear. No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world.
Blanket searches are unreasonable, however "even-handed" they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket pat-down search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but "even-handed" general police searches.
In Zurcher, the Supreme Court held that a search of the offices of a university newspaper, which was not involved in any criminal activity, for photographs of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers did not offend the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court concluded: "[T]he Amendment has not been a barrier to warrants to search property on which there is probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located, whether or not the owner or possessor of the premises to be searched is himself reasonably suspected of complicity in the crime being investigated." Zurcher v. Stanford Daily ('78) 436 U.S. 547, 549-50.
Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures." The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. "The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take." Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).
A permanent resident alien is entitled to constitutional protection. For example:
Martinez v. Nygaard, 831 F.2d 822, 824, 826-28 (9th Cir.'87) (analyzing whether seizures of three resident aliens complied with Fourth Amendment).
Read the original here:
Fourth Amendment | UpCounsel 2019
- Quinn: Supreme Court should clarify Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment is destroyed by the Roberts led Supreme Court. - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Protections for e-data clear Senate committee - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Court may let cops search smartphones - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Supreme Court to hear case on police searches of cellphones - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- What Scalia knows about illegal searches - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- Should police be allowed to search your smartphone - Video - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules police don't need warrants to search cars - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Local police: Updated vehicle-search law still requires probable cause - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Liberal Supreme Court Justice Comes To The Defense Of Scalia - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Smartphones and the Fourth Amendment - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained - Law - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- I-Team: Do police seek search warrant friendly judges? - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Is Big Brother Listening? Applying the Fourth Amendment in an Electronic Age - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Magistrate waxes poetic while rejecting Gmail search request - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- License reader lawsuit can be heard, appeals court rules - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Seize the Rojo - Video - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- NSA Spying Has a Disproportionate Effect on Immigrants - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Motorists sue Aurora, police in 2012 traffic stop after bank robbery - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]
- Judge Says NSA Phone Surveillance Likely Unconstitutional - Video - May 21st, 2014 [May 21st, 2014]
- New York Attorney Heath D. Harte Releases a Statement on Fourth Amendment Rights - May 22nd, 2014 [May 22nd, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment Rights - Video - May 23rd, 2014 [May 23rd, 2014]
- Bangor Area School District teachers vote no to random drug - May 24th, 2014 [May 24th, 2014]
- I Don't Care About The Contitution, Take Your Fourth Amendment And Shove It The Hills Hotel - Video - May 27th, 2014 [May 27th, 2014]
- Lonestar1776 at Illegal Checkpoint 80 Miles Inside Border - Standing UP & Pushing Back! pt 2/2 - Video - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Suit charges Daytona Beach's rental inspection program violates civil rights - September 3rd, 2014 [September 3rd, 2014]
- 4th Amendment - Laws.com - September 4th, 2014 [September 4th, 2014]
- YOU CAN ARREST ME NOW (cops refuse, steal phone) - Video - September 7th, 2014 [September 7th, 2014]
- The Feds Explain How They Seized The Silk Road Servers - September 8th, 2014 [September 8th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Does obtaining leaked data from a misconfigured website violate the CFAA? - September 9th, 2014 [September 9th, 2014]
- Defence asks judge in NYC to toss out bulk of evidence in Silk Road case as illegally obtained - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Family of a mentally ill woman files lawsuit against San Mateo Co. after deadly shooting - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Minnesota Supreme Court upholds airport drug case decision - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Law Talk - Obamacare Rollout; Fourth Amendment, NSA Spying Stop & Frisk DUI Check Points lta041 - Video - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters - September 16th, 2014 [September 16th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Apples dangerous game - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- Judge expounds on privacy rights - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Great privacy essay: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment By Maison Erdman - Video - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids - September 22nd, 2014 [September 22nd, 2014]
- The chilling loophole that lets police stop, question and search you for no good reason - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs - September 27th, 2014 [September 27th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: A few thoughts on Heien v. North Carolina - September 29th, 2014 [September 29th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit on the mosaic theory and Smith v. Maryland - October 1st, 2014 [October 1st, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit gives narrow reading to exclusionary rule - October 2nd, 2014 [October 2nd, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Supreme Court takes case on duration of traffic stops - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure, Racial Bias: The American Law Journal on the Philadelphia CNN-News Affiliate WFMZ Monday, October 6 ... - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Argument preview: How many brake lights need to be working on your car? - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- The 'Barney Fife Loophole' to the Fourth Amendment - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure: A New Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Promo - Video - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project - Video - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- Lubbock Liberty Workshop With Arnold Loewy On The Fourth Amendment - Video - October 5th, 2014 [October 5th, 2014]
- Feds Hacked Silk Road Without A Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Starts Term with Fourth Amendment Case - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Argument analysis: A simple answer to a deceptively simple Fourth Amendment question? - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Feds Say That Even If FBI Hacked The Silk Road, Ulbricht's Rights Weren't Violated - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment - Video - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Leggett sides with civil liberties supporters - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Search & Seizure / Car Stops: A 'New' Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment- The Maininator Period 4 - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Judge nukes Ulbricht's complaint about WARRANTLESS FBI Silk Road server raid - October 11th, 2014 [October 11th, 2014]
- Montgomery County will not hold immigrants without probable cause -- Gazette.Net - October 13th, 2014 [October 13th, 2014]
- Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment? - October 14th, 2014 [October 14th, 2014]
- Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment? - October 19th, 2014 [October 19th, 2014]
- When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer? - October 21st, 2014 [October 21st, 2014]
- Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- US court rules in favor of providing officials access to entire email account - October 24th, 2014 [October 24th, 2014]
- EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video - October 25th, 2014 [October 25th, 2014]
- FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance - October 30th, 2014 [October 30th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment (United States Constitution ... - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment - Video - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Call Yourself a Hacker and Lose Fourth Amendment Rights - Video - November 5th, 2014 [November 5th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Magistrate issues arrest warrants for 17 years but is new to probable cause - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]