4th Amendment: Search and Seizure

Scholarship

Cases

Boyd v US [116 U.S. 616 (1886)]: 4^th & 5^th Ams “apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” (Also – seizing a man’s books & papers is like compelling him to testify against himself.)
Hayle v. Henkel [201 U.S. 43 (1906)]: Constitutionality of government subpoenas to compel documents: not a quest, but still a “search” under Boyd.
Weeks v US [232 U.S. 383 (1914)]: 4^th Am puts courts & law enforcement under restrictions: “The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.” (393) (IOW, it’s unconstitutional to admit evidence seized illegally.)
Perlman v. U.S. [247 U.S. 7 (1918)]: Efforts by government to secure exhibits from previous litigation in a perjury case = not search because Perlman no longer possessed the things (they were entered as court exhibits).
Silverthorne Lumber Co v US [251 U.S. 385 (1920)]: evidence obtained illegally shall not be used.
Hester v. U.S. [265 U.S. 57 (1924)]: open-fields doctrine; LEO trespassed on land and observed house, but there was no search of house, person, papers, or effects.
Carroll v. U.S. [267 U.S. 132 (1925)]: a warrantless search of an automobile is constitutional, since the evidence could so easily be removed before a warrant was approved. (First articulation of automobile exception.)
Byars v US [273 U.S. 28 (1927)]: Not constitutional to use evidence obtained w/o warrant.
US v. Lee [274 U.S. 559 (1927)]: Use of searchlight to locate liquor on board boat is not a “search.”
McGuire v. U.S. [273 U.S. 95 (1927)]: during Prohibition, gov’t agents entered home w/ warrant to seize liquor, decided to destroy most of it.
Olmstead v US [277 U.S. 438 (1928)]: wiretapping a telephone line from a public street is not a search. Can’t admit evidence if obtained in violation of 4^th
U.S. v. Lefkowitz [285 U.S. 452 (1932)]: Right to privacy
Goldman v. U.S. [316 U.S. 129 (1942)]: Agents listened in on conversations inside lawyers office; they’d broken in and installed mic, but it didn’t work, so they picked up voices from office next door. SCOTUS decided it didn’t count as search.
McNabb v US [318 U.S. 332 (1943)]: Can’t uphold conviction if evidence obtained unconstitutionally.
Wolf v Colorado [338 U.S. 25 (1949)]: (Overruled by Mapp v. OH.) Used by state to argue that evidence obtained in this way may be used at trial. 14^th Am Due Process Clause forbids arbitrary intrusion by state into privacy, but Court would not force states to adhere to exclusionary rule in Weeks because there were other ways to protect privacy.
Rochin v CA [342 U.S. 165 (1952)]: Suspect swallowed capsules when police barged in; capsules were recovered via stomach pump. Self-incrimination as per 5^th Am; violation of due process. “Shock the conscience” test.
On Lee v. U.S. [343 U.S. 747 (1952)]: Undercover agent entered laundry with recording device; On Lee made incriminating statements. Court rejected argument that trespass = search.
Irvine v CA [347 U.S. 128 (1954)]: Though police should have behaved better, evidence obtained illegally could be used in trial. (Confusion of opinions here. “Shock the conscience” test is too vague.)
Rea v US [350 U.S. 214 (1956)]: preventing state use of evidence unconstitutionally seized by federal agents.
Miller v US [357 U.S. 301, 313 (1958)]: “However much in a particular case insistence upon such rules may appear as a technicality that inures to the benefit of a guilty person, the history of the criminal law proves that tolerance of shortcut methods in law enforcement impairs its enduring effectiveness.”
Elkins v US [364 U.S. 206 (1960)]: adopting exclusionary rule of Weeks for States
Jones v US [362 U.S. 257 (1960)]: constitutional protection from unlawful searches extends to anyone legitimately on the premises.
Mapp v OH [367 U.S. 643 (1961)]: Overrules Wolf. Exclusionary rule established for States as well as Federal courts via 14th Amendment enforcing 4th on search & seizure (and maybe 5th on self-incrimination).
Silverman v. U.S. [365 U.S. 505 (1961)]: Agents surveilled gambling ring using spike mike in crack in wall that touched the heating duct in the neighboring house. Court ruled this a search. (Distinguished from Goldman by only a few inches!)
Aguilar v. TX [378 US 108 (1964)]: [informant & probable cause]
Warden v. Hayden [387 U.S. 294 (1967)]: limited the purpose of warrants: “The gov’t could not obtain a warrant to search for and seize mere evidence of crime.” (Kerr on Trespass, 20)
Katz v. U.S. [389 U. S. 347 (1967)]: Phone booth and wiretapping: must get warrant because 4th Amendment covers recording of oral statements. Concurrence by Harlan introduces reasonable expectation of privacy.
Spinelli v. U.S. [393 US 410 (1969)]: [Informant, probable cause, & search warrant]
U.S. v. White [401 U.S. 745 (1971)]: Not a search if undercover agent wears recording wire.
Bivens v. U.S. [403 U.S. 388 (1971)]: Individual may sue federal agents who violated Fourth Amendment.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte [412 US 218 (1973)]: Citizen has right to refuse consent to search
U.S. v. Calandra [414 US 338 (1974)]: Balancing test evaluates costs and benefits of admitting evidence obtained illegally.
U.S. v. Miller [425 US 435 (1976)]: No right to privacy in bank records, bcz part of bank’s business records. (Third-party doctrine)
U.S. v. Janis [428 US 433 (1976)]: [re. evidence in civil cases]
South Dakota v. Opperman [428 U.S. 364 (1976)]: Further rationale for automobile exception: pervasive regulation of vehicles.
Stone v. Powell [428 US 465 (1976)]: [evidence and habeas petition]
G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States [429 U.S. 338 (1977)]: Police can’t do a warrantless seizure of property situated on private premises. (Plain-view doctrine)
Smith v. Maryland [442 US 735 (1979)]: the installation and use of a pen register was not a search and did not require a warrant. (Third-party doctrine)
U.S. v. Williams [621 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1980)]: Introduces good-faith exception to exclusionary rule
Payton v. New York [445 U.S. 573 (1980)]: can’t enter a house to make an arrest without a warrant. (trespass)
U.S. v. Havens [446 US 620 (1980)]: [impeachment in criminal cases]
United States v. Ross [456 U.S. 798 (1982)]: “…the most frail cottage in the kingdom is absolutely entitled to the same guarantee of privacy as the most majestic mansion.” (822)
IL v. Gates [462 US 213 (1983)]: [Anonymous tip and probable cause]
TX v. Brown [460 U.S. 730 (1983)]: Flashlight is not a search.
Oliver v. U.S. [466 U.S. 170 (1984)]: open-field doctrine. Curtilage protection first articulated.
U.S. v. Leon [468 US 897 (1984)]: Good faith exception (with warrants)
California v. Carney [471 U.S. 386 (1985)]: More about automobile exception.
California v. Ciraolo [476 U. S. 207 (1986)]: Aerial surveillance of curtilage permitted w/o warrant
U.S. v. Dunn [480 U. S. 294 (1987)]: Open fields, surveillance, barn outside curtilage
California v. Greenwood [486 U.S. 35 (1988)]: Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless search of trash left outside the curtilage of the home.
Horton v. California [496 U.S. 128 (1990)]: Reiterates plain-view doctrine.
Soldal v. Cook County [506 U.S. 56 (1992)]: Reiterates plain-view doctrine.
Pennsylvania v. Labron [518 U.S. 938 (1996)]: Automobile exception permits police to search vehicle without warrant.
Wyoming v. Houghton [526 U.S. 295 (1999)]: Automobile exception permits police to search containers within vehicle.
Kyllo v. U.S. [533 U.S. 27 (2003)]: Gov’t use of infrared imaging device to detect hot spot for growing marijuana in home. It’s a search when gov’t uses new technology to obtain information from inside a home, info they could only have gotten previously via trespass. Scalia’s test: what info would have been accessible in the 18th c. absent trespass?
Georgia v. Randolph [547 U.S. 103 (2006)]: Can police search house of co-owning husband and wife if only one spouse consented to search?
U.S. v. Jones [565 U. S. 400 (2012)]: GPS tracking device for 28 days; physical intrusion (trespass law).
Florida v. Jardines [569 U.S. 1 (2013)]: Reiterated curtilage protection — drug-sniffing dog didn’t have a warrant.
Collins v. VA [584 U.S. ___ (2018)]: Automobile exception does not extend to warrantless search on curtilage of residence.
Byrd v. U.S. [584 U.S. ___ (2018)]: driver of rental car has standing to bring 4th Am complaint even if he wasn’t the renter or on the authorized driver list.
Carpenter v. U.S. [585 U. S. ___ (2018)]: Cell Site Location Information is protected under the 4th Amendment and requires probable cause & a warrant for a search >6 days. (Third-party doctrine)

Share this: