The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
enforcement officers may invade the privacy of individuals play a
key role in the interactions between private citizen and police.
Pro Privacy Decisions
Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102 June 23, 2003
[6-3 : Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens / Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist]
After a police officer finds two men having sex together in their home, they are
charged with violating Texas's laws against homosexual sex. The Court ruled that
the Texas laws were invalid because they violated the Equal Protection Clause by
criminalizing conduct among disapproved sub-populations (the same act would have
been legal for a heterosexual couple) and most of the majority (exclusing O'Connor)
found that there was a 4th Amendment privacy protection for intimate, private,
consensual, adult acts.
Minnesota State ONLY: Minnesota State vs Fort, May 1, 2003.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules that "consent searches" during traffic stops are
unconstitutional because they violate the requirement that searches be reasonable.
Searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity are banned.
Illinois Supreme Court Only : Illinois vs Cox, Dec 2002
Illinois State Supreme Court blocks a search pursuant to a dog sniff after a traffic
stop. Although the decision is confusingly argued, they appear to invalidate
suspicionless dog sniff searches:
"Moreover, were we to accept the State's contention that the dog-sniff test was
permissible, we would be endorsing a drug-sniff test at every stop for a traffic
violation... In sum, Officer McCormick did not have "specific and articulable facts
which, taken together with rational inferences therefrom," reasonably warranted an
extended detention of defendant's vehicle, and the ensuing drug-sniff test. He did
not have even a hunch that defendant was engaged in criminal activity to support
the call to Deputy Zola. Given these circumstances, if we held that Officer McCormick
was justified in calling the canine unit, we would clearly support the view that police
officers can resort to the use of canine units at every traffic stop."
New Jersey State ONLY: State of New Jersey vs SJ Courty, March 4 2002.
[5-0: Coleman J, Chief Justice Poritz DT, Long V, & Zazzali JR with Stein J
concurring.]
New Jersey state Supreme Court found that "consent searches" during traffic
stops, where individuals are asked for consent to search themselves or their
vehicles are unconstitutional without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime.
KYLLO v. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 190 F.3d 1041 June 11, 2001
[5-4 : Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer / Stevens, Rehnquist, OConnor,
Kennedy]
After suspecting Kyllo of growing cannabis, police officers scanned his home with
infra-red imaging equipment and found a suspicious heat signature on a wall of his
garage. They used this evidence to get a search warrant, which led to his conviction
for growing cannabis. The Supreme Court ruled that infrared imaging of homes (or
other high-tech scanning) is unconstitutional without a warrant.
Ferguson v City of Charleston (99-936) 186 F.3d 469: March 21, 2001
The Court stopped a South Carolina hospital from secretly drug testing pregnant
women and turning over the results to the police.
INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMOND (99-1030) 183 F.3d 659: November 28, 2000
The Court stopped Indiana from setting up roadblocks for the explicit purpose of
warrantless drug searches.
KNOWLES v. IOWA (000 U.S. 97-7597) : December 8, 1998 (9-0)
The Court cancelled an Iowa state law that gives "officers authority to conduct a full-
blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of
making a custodial arrest." In this case a man was pulled over for speeding and
without his consent his car and person were fully searched. The court ruled this to
be an unacceptable breach of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable
searches.
MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON (508 U.S. 366) : June 7, 1993 (7-2)
A key decision disallowing weapons searches resulting in finding non-weapon
contraband. A man stopped for being in a suspicious area is given a "Terry
Patdown" (weapons search) and found to have some small thing in his pocket,
which the policeman removed and found to be a crack-rock. The Supreme Court
ruled that the in order to determine whether the item was crack or not required a
further, unwarranted search and was not acceptable by 4th Amendment standards.
MINNESOTA v. OLSON (495 U.S. 91) : April 18, 1990 (7-2)
A decision finding that guests in homes have constitutional privacy protections. In
this case the defendant was staying with a friend when the police arrived and
surrounded the home on a sunday afternoon. The police phoned the home and the
resident told the police the defendent wasn't there after which the police burst into
the home to find the defendant hiding in a closet. The Supreme Court ruled that
breaking into the home without a warrant was unlawful.
ARIZONA v. HICKS : March 3, 1987 (6-3)
A decision to require probable cause for searches, continuing the strong 4th
Amendment standard which requires more than just suspicion to allow a search. In
this case, the police had lawfully entered an apartment and saw an expensive
stereo, which an officer assumed to be stolen because of the neighborhood and
other contributing factors (a shotgun and black mask in the room). The police
proceeded to move and search the stereo for serial numbers, which they discovered
were stolen. The Court ruled that the police officer's acts with the stereo
constituted a search and the police would need to meet the "probable cause"
standard in order to lawfully conduct a search of the private equipment.
YBARRA v. ILLINOIS (444 U.S. 85) : November 28, 1979 (6-3)
Another decision making clear that a Terry Search for weapons cannot be used as a
pretext for continued searching of a person. The case of a man who was in a bar
that was being legally searched by police for heroin. He was patted for weapons as
were all the other patrons in the bar and was found to have "a cigarette pack with
objects in it" in his pants pocket. The police pulled the cigarette pack from his
pocket and found heroin. The Supreme Court ruled that this was an unreasonable
search and seizure.
Searches for weapons should always be predicated on a reasonable belief that a
suspect may be threatening. "The Terry case created an exception to the
requirement of probable cause, an exception whose 'narrow scope' this Court 'has
been careful to maintain.'6 Under that doctrine a law enforcement officer, for his
own protection and safety, may conduct a patdown to find weapons that he
reasonably believes or suspects are then in the possession of the person he has
accosted. Nothing in Terry can be understood to allow a generalized [444 U.S. 85,
94] 'cursory search for weapons' or, indeed, any search whatever for anything but
weapons. The 'narrow scope' of the Terry exception does not permit a frisk for
weapons on less than reasonable belief or suspicion directed at the person to be
frisked, even though that person happens to be on premises where an authorized
narcotics search is taking place." Justice Sterwart, YBARRA v. ILLINOIS, 444 U.S. 85
(1979)
Anti Privacy Decisions
ILLINOIS v. CABBALES (03-923) : Jan 24, 2005 (6-2) A man stopped for speeding
had his car sniffed by a drug dog while he was being issued a ticket, was not
detained for longer than he normally would have to wait for the dog. Dog alerted on
the car, the car was searched and cannabis was found in the trunk. The U.S. Court
overturned the Illinois Supreme Court and found: "A dog sniff conducted during a
concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of
a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth
Amendment."
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY v. EARLS (01-332) : June 27,
2002 (5-4) Supreme Court ruled that any extracurricular activity is cause for drug
testing in public schools.
ATWATER v. LAGO VISTA (99-1408) : April 24, 2001 (5-4) A woman was stopped
for not wearing her seatbelt while driving with her children. The police officers
"pulled Atwater over, verbally berated her, handcuffed her, placed her in his squad
car, and drove her to the local police station, where she was made to remove her
shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets. Officers took her 'mug
shot' and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about an hour, after which she was
taken before a magistrate and released on bond." Atwater sued, arguing that this
type of treatment as unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth
Amendment. Souter, writing for the 5-4 majority said that the police may arrest
and mistreat them at any time, so long as they have reasonable suspicion that even
the smallest infraction has been committed.
FLORIDA v. WHITE (000 U.S. 98-223) : May 17, 1999 (7-2)
Two months after officers observed respondent using his car to deliver cocaine, he
was arrested at work on unrelated charges. At that time, the police seized his car
without securing a warrant because they believed the car was subject to forfeiture
under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (Act). During a subsequent inventory
search, the police discovered cocaine in the car. Respondent was then charged with
a state drug violation. The Court ruled in another terrible decision that police may
seize a car anytime they like if they have probable cause to believe it has ever been
involved in any crime. A bit of Humor by The Onion that came out soon after this
decision.
WYOMING v. HOUGHTON (000 U.S. 98-184) : April 5, 1999 (6-3)
A decision allowing searches of passenger's purse with probable cause against the
driver, when the passenger was not holding the purse.
MINNESOTA v. CARTER (000 U.S. 97-1147) : December 1, 1998 (6-3)
The Court made a bizarre ruling that unless guests in a home are staying over
night, they have no legitimate expecation of privacy from the spying eyes of police.
In this case a policeman peeked through the closed blinds into a private residence in
an apartment complex and saw some people bagging white powder. The officer
arrested then men as they left the building. The court held that "Any search which
may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Because
respondents had no legitimate expectation of privacy, the Court need not decide
whether the officer’s observation constituted a 'search'." Ugly as hell.
MARYLAND v. WILSON (000 U.S. 98-184) : February 19, 1997
One of the recent decisions by Rehnquists fascist court allowing police to order
passengers to exit a vehicles pulled over for traffic stops without even any
suspicion of danger, threat, or wrongdoing. See PENNSYLVANIA v. MIMMS
FLORIDA v. BOSTICK (000 U.S. 89-1717) : June 20, 1991 (6-3)
A decision allowing police sweeps of busses which are recognized as "are
inconvenient, intrusive, and intimidating." Despite being trapped in his seat at the
back of a bus by several officers without any probable cause, the defendent should
have known that he was "free to leave" and had the right to deny any and all
requests by the police for information and searching his belongings.
OLIVER v. US (466 US 170) : April 17, 1984 (6-3)
In a nightmarish decision going against all reasonable standards of privacy,
Reagan's fascist court ruled that police are exempt from private property
trespassing restrictions and may search any area of private property, even when
there are fences and No Trespassing signs, except for the area immediately around
"the home".
MICHIGAN v. LONG (463 U.S. 1032) : July 6, 1983 (6-3)
The court allowed a 'weapons search' of a vehicle to as a means of 'protecting' the
officers who had detained a man who had driven into a ditch and appeared
intoxicated. The man's car contained a pouch of cannabis and he was arrested. The
Supreme Court ruled "The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their
reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter
his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure
that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before
permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the
officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their
belief that he could injure them."
UNITED STATES v. ROSS (456 U.S. 798) : June 1, 1982 (6-3)
A huge and terrible decision by the High Court which explicitly attempted to allow
searches of any containers inside any vehicle on the basis of a police officer's
assertion of probable cause, totally circumventing the 4th Amendment's warrant
requirement. Thurgood Marshall's dissent is extremely good.
NEW YORK v. BELTON (453 U.S. 454) : July 1, 1981 (5-4)
The court allowed an officer to unzip a zipped jacket pocket and remove the
contents of the pocket from a jacket left in the backseat of a car after he had
arrested the driver and passengers. The court revised the Chimel v. California
standard which said that the State was allowed to search those things within
immediate reach of someone when arrested. This opinion also attempted to make
broad changes by saying that : "Not only may the police search the passenger
compartment of the car in such circumstances, they may also examine the contents
of any containers found in the passenger compartment. And such a container may
be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not
that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container but that the lawful
custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may
have."
RAWLINGS v. KENTUCKY (448 U.S. 98) : June 25, 1980 (7-2)
A case where it is determined that even if a second-party's 4th Amendment rights
are abridged and that breach yields evidence against the first person, that the first
person has no 'standing' to prevent the use of property improperly searched. Police
had a warrant to arrrest a person, but found several other people when they
arrived at the location. They 'smelled marijuana' and got a second warrant to search
the actual house, after which they forced a woman to empty her purse which
contained a controlled substance. The defendent admitted the drugs were his. The
court ruled that despite the fact that the woman had been improperly searched,
resulting in materials which later were used to prosecute the defendant, that the
defendant could not exclude the evidence because he had no 4th Amendment
protection over someone else's purse. Very bad.
PENNSYLVANIA v. MIMMS (434 U.S. 106) : December 5, 1977 (6-3)
The court allowed an officer to routinely order all people stopped for traffic
violations out of their car (and presumably all passengers) without any suspicion or
cause.
TERRY v. OHIO (396 U.S. 1) : June 10, 1968
A key decision allowing officers to do weapons searches of people during any stop.
The "Terry search" or "Terry pat" has become a standard for interacting with
'suspicious' people.
