Also known as: searches and seizures · search & seizure · unreasonable search and seizure
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection that safeguards individuals against government intrusions into their persons, houses, papers, and effects. The protection requires that any warrant issue only upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and that the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Evidence obtained through a violation of this protection is subject to exclusion in criminal proceedings.
Sasha Stone kept a locked shed in her fenced backyard. City code officers entered the yard without a warrant, opened the shed with bolt cutters, and photographed its contents. The photographs were obtained through an unreasonable search of protected areas. The court suppressed the evidence because no warrant or exception justified the intrusion.
Simon Stern's home was searched by state police without probable cause. The officers seized documents that the prosecution sought to introduce at trial. The court applied the exclusionary rule and barred the evidence because the search violated constitutional standards. The ruling deterred future misconduct by state agents.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Stella Shapiro's apartment was entered and searched by federal narcotics agents without a warrant. She suffered property damage and emotional distress from the intrusion. Shapiro filed a civil action seeking money damages directly from the agents. The suit proceeded because the agents' conduct violated her protected interests.
Seth Shapiro was arrested for driving under the influence. Officers directed a physician to draw a blood sample without a warrant. The sample revealed alcohol levels that the state sought to introduce at trial. The court upheld the draw because the procedure was reasonable under the circumstances of the arrest.
Stephen Shaw was called before a grand jury after agents conducted an unlawful search of his office. The prosecutor asked questions based on documents seized during that search. Shaw moved to quash the questions under the exclusionary rule. The court denied the motion because the rule does not extend to grand jury proceedings.
Sarah Sullivan was taken into custody and questioned about items found during a home search. Officers did not advise her of her rights before asking about the seized evidence. The prosecution sought to use her statements at trial. The court excluded the statements because the interrogation occurred without required warnings.
A warrantless search of curtilage violates the Fourth Amendment when officers physically enter areas closely associated with the home without consent, exigency, or another recognized exception. The backyard and locked outbuildings receive the same protection as the dwelling itself. Evidence obtained from such an entry is subject to suppression in enforcement proceedings.
Supporting sources
The exclusionary rule applies in state criminal trials through the Fourteenth Amendment. Evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Constitution is inadmissible in state court just as it is in federal court. The rule deters police misconduct and is an essential part of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Supporting sources
A person can obtain damages for an unreasonable search by federal agents when the agents violate the Fourth Amendment. The cause of action arises directly under the Constitution even without an express statutory remedy. Official immunity does not shield the agents from liability for such violations.
Supporting sources
…taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes,…