Also known as: searches and seizures · search & seizure · unreasonable search and seizure
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
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.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseSeth 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.
Petitioner Schmerber and a companion had been drinking at a tavern and bowling alley on November 12, 1964. Petitioner was driving from the bowling alley about midnight when the car skidded, crossed the road, and struck a tree. Both petitioner and his companion were injured and taken to a hospital for treatment. A police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident smelled liquor on petitioner's breath and testified that petitioner's eyes were bloodshot, watery, and sort of a glassy appearance. The officer saw petitioner again at the hospital within two hours of the accident and noticed similar symptoms of drunkenness. He thereupon informed petitioner that he was under arrest and that he was entitled to the services of an attorney, that he could remain silent, and that anything he told the officer would be used against him in evidence. At the direction of a police officer, a blood sample was then withdrawn from petitioner's body by a physician at the hospital. The chemical analysis of this sample revealed a percent by weight of alcohol in his blood at the time of the offense which indicated intoxication. The report of this analysis was admitted in evidence at the trial. Petitioner objected to receipt of this evidence of the analysis on the ground that the blood had been withdrawn despite his refusal, on the advice of his counsel, to consent to the test. Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles Municipal Court of the criminal offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Appellate Department of the California Superior Court rejected petitioner's contentions and affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseStephen 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.
In February 1971 petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California investigating violations of federal gambling and related laws. The government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Prior to the scheduled appearances, the government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003. Petitioners opposed issuance of the order, contending that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute was not coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and therefore was not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel their testimony. The District Court rejected this contention and ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions under the grant of immunity. Petitioners appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. They were brought before the District Court, and each persisted in his refusal to answer the grand jury's questions notwithstanding the grant of immunity. The court found both in contempt and committed them to the custody of the Attorney General until either they answered the grand jury's questions or the term of the grand jury expired. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt findings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether testimony may be compelled by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom or whether transactional immunity is necessary.
View caseSarah 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.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseA 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,…