Also known as: search and seizure · search · seizure · unreasonable searches and seizures · fourth amendment · 4th amendment
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The constitutional protection against unreasonable governmental intrusions into a person's privacy interests in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. A search or seizure occurs when government officials violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy or physically intrude on protected areas without a warrant supported by probable cause or a recognized exception.
Scott Summers returns home to find officers inside his residence examining his papers without a warrant. The officers had no probable cause or exigent circumstances. The evidence they seize is subject to suppression because the entry violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Skylar Sullivan is prosecuted in state court after officers seize drugs from her car during an unlawful stop. The state seeks to introduce the evidence despite the constitutional violation. The exclusionary rule bars its use to deter future police misconduct.
Sophia Singh purchases property and later discovers an undisclosed lien that a title search missed. The insurer refuses coverage under the policy exclusions. The dispute centers on whether the title search adequately protected against defects in the recorded chain of title.
Santiago Sanchez gives a statement after an illegal arrest. Officers later obtain a second statement following proper warnings. The second statement is admissible only if the taint from the initial seizure has dissipated through intervening circumstances.
Sierra Santos places personal documents in her trash can at the curb. Officers retrieve the documents without a warrant. The search is lawful because Santos abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in items left for collection.
Steven Silva refuses entry to housing inspectors seeking to check code compliance. The inspectors obtain an administrative warrant based on an area inspection plan. The warrant satisfies the Fourth Amendment because it is supported by reasonable legislative standards rather than individualized probable cause.
Roland Camara, lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building in San Francisco, faced criminal charges under the city's Housing Code for refusing to allow municipal inspectors to enter his residence without a search warrant. On November 6, 1963, an inspector from the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered the building to conduct a routine annual inspection for possible code violations. The building manager told the inspector that Camara was using the rear of his leasehold as a personal residence, which the occupancy permit did not authorize. The inspector confronted Camara and demanded entry to inspect the premises, but Camara refused because the inspector lacked a warrant. The inspector returned on November 8 without a warrant, and Camara again denied access. A citation was then mailed ordering Camara to appear at the district attorney's office. When he failed to appear, two inspectors returned on November 22 and informed him that Section 503 of the Housing Code required him to permit entry at reasonable times upon presentation of proper credentials. Camara still refused without a warrant. A complaint was filed charging him with violating Section 507 by refusing to permit a lawful inspection. He was arrested on December 2 and released on bail. Camara's demurrer to the criminal complaint was denied in the municipal court. He then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in California Superior Court, alleging that the ordinance authorizing the warrantless inspection was unconstitutional on its face. The Superior Court denied the writ. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. Camara had properly raised and obtained consideration of the federal constitutional questions in the state courts. The inspection program operated under Section 86(3) of the San Francisco Municipal Code, which required apartment house operators to pay an annual license fee that partly defrayed the cost of periodic inspections. The Bureau of Housing Inspection conducted these inspections at least once a year and as often thereafter as deemed necessary. The permit of occupancy for the building was not issued until the license was obtained.
View caseYes. Evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible in state court under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The rule deters police misconduct and applies equally in state and federal courts.
Supporting sources
A search occurs when government officials violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. The two-part inquiry asks first whether the person exhibited an actual expectation of privacy and second whether society recognizes that expectation as reasonable.
Supporting sources
Evidence is admissible if obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable from the primary illegality so that the connection has become attenuated. Courts consider temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and the flagrancy of official misconduct.
Supporting sources
No. Area-wide inspection programs may be authorized by warrants based on reasonable legislative or administrative standards rather than individualized suspicion. The warrant ensures the inspection is reasonable and limits official discretion.
Supporting sources
…terms of the 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,…