Abstract: The Fourth Amendment to U.S. Constitution protects people of United States from searches and seizures. On first reading, these protections seem clearly defined. The text reads: The right of people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized. The amendment was meant to Americans from kinds of random searches and seizures that colonists experienced under British colonial rule. Under British law, writs of assistance gave British soldiers broad discretion to colonists' homes for evidence of crimes. Perhaps first thing to note about Fourth Amendment is that it is not concerned with every and seizure. It only applies to unreasonable searches and seizures, and even then only restricts police or other governmental officials who are acting in their official capacities. Thus, in a school setting, teachers and school administrators may be governed by Fourth Amendment, while a student's parents (or classmates) would not be. Moreover, what constitutes a search within meaning of amendment can differ dramatically from ordinary sense of word. On one hand, in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Fourth Amendment includes hi-tech surveillance in which no police officer ever rummages through anyone's houses, papers or effects but rather simply drives down street and points a thermal imaging device at outside of a house. And on other hand, activities that would surely be deemed a search in everyday sense of word might not be considered a at all for Fourth Amendment purposes. In California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), for example, Court ruled that police are not conducting a within meaning of Fourth Amendment when they go through contents of a homeowner's curbside garbage bags to look for evidence of drug use. This is so because what constitutes a Fourth Amendment depends not on what activity looks like, but on whether it can be said to have invaded one's expectation of And this expectation of privacy must be reasonable in more than one sense. When someone claims that a government has violated his privacy rights, courts will ask (1) whether that person has exhibited an actual subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) whether that subjective expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Thus, although Court has said Fourth Amendment is meant to protect people, not places, where we are--in our car, on a crowded bus, or in our office at work--affects reasonableness and strength of our expectations of privacy. In American law, no place offers a greater expectation of privacy than one's own home. The classic formulation of this core principle has been repeated in one way or another in countless judicial opinions. It was dusted off once again just last term by Supreme Court in Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (2006): Since we hold to centuries-old principle of respect for privacy of home, it is beyond dispute that home is entitled to special protection as center of private lives of our people. We have, after all, lived our whole national history with an understanding of the ancient adage that a man's home is his castle [to point that t]he poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all forces of Crown. (Internal quotes and citations omitted. …
Publication Year: 2007
Publication Date: 2007-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot