The Evolution Of Amendment 4: A Law's Journey

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment became law in response to increasing infringements on privacy in the colonies and in England, where general warrants and writs of assistance allowed officials to conduct warrantless searches. The Fourth Amendment enforces the notion that each man's home is his castle, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It also serves as the basis for laws regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to criminal law and privacy law.

The right to privacy

The Fourth Amendment, or Amendment 4, of the U.S. Constitution, protects the right to privacy of the American people. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, and became law in response to increasing infringements on privacy in the colonies and in England.

The official text of the amendment is:

> 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.

The Fourth Amendment enforces the notion that "each man's home is his castle", and that citizens are secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests and is the basis for the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance.

The amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those deemed unreasonable under the law. The extent of protection also depends on the location of the search or seizure. For example, searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are generally considered unreasonable. However, there are exceptions to this, such as when an officer is given consent to search, or when the search is incident to a lawful arrest.

The Fourth Amendment has been frequently debated in recent years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have engaged in controversial activities, including the bulk collection of Americans' telephone and internet data as part of the War on Terror. With advancements in technology and the emergence of new forms of communication and surveillance, the interpretation and application of the Fourth Amendment continue to evolve and play a central role in ensuring the right to privacy.

Unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government officials. This means that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects (property) against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment is rooted in the notion of "each man's home is his castle", protecting against arbitrary arrests and invasions of privacy. It is the basis for laws regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance.

For a search or seizure to be considered reasonable, there must be a balance between an individual's Fourth Amendment rights and legitimate government interests, such as public safety. The location of the search or seizure also plays a role in determining its reasonableness. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are generally considered unreasonable, with some exceptions.

Warrants are required for most searches of private property and must be based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or items to be seized. However, there are situations where a warrant is not needed, such as searches incident to a lawful arrest, consent from an authorised person, emergencies, "hot pursuit" of a fleeing suspect, imminent destruction of evidence, or when evidence is in plain view or in areas without a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Evidence obtained through an unlawful search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, generally cannot be used in a criminal proceeding.

Search warrants

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the government cannot conduct arbitrary searches and seizures of property, and it is the basis of the law regarding search warrants.

In practice, however, warrants are rarely obtained due to a number of exceptions. For example, police can search automobiles without warrants, detain people on the street without them, and always search or seize in an emergency without going to a judge. A warrantless search may also be lawful if an officer has consent to search, if the search is incident to a lawful arrest, or if there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances.

Exigent circumstances exist when people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect is about to escape. In these situations, a warrantless search may be justified if obtaining a warrant is impractical.

The Fourth Amendment has been the subject of much debate in recent years, particularly in relation to the use of new technologies such as the internet and drones, and the increased use of aggressive police tactics such as "stop and frisk". With the advent of the internet and the increased popularity of computers, there has been a growing amount of electronic crime, and consequently, evidence of such crimes is often found on electronic devices. This has led to questions about how much power the police should have to collect data and what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure on the internet.

The courts have only begun to answer these questions and it will be up to future courts to figure out how the Fourth Amendment applies in these situations.

Stop-and-frisk

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. This includes searches of their "persons, houses, papers, and effects". The Fourth Amendment is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, and it also covers stop-and-frisk procedures, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance.

A stop-and-frisk refers to a brief, non-intrusive police stop of an individual. For a stop-and-frisk to be lawful, the Fourth Amendment requires that the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect. If the police reasonably believe the individual may be armed and dangerous, they may frisk them by patting down their outer clothing. This is to search for weapons and ensure the officer's safety. The stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment and cannot be unreasonable.

The New York City Police Department's (NYPD) use of stop-and-frisk has been highly controversial and was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2013. The policy allowed officers to stop, interrogate, and search citizens based on "reasonable suspicion". However, evidence suggested that this was used as a method of racial profiling, disproportionately targeting Black and Latino citizens. Between 2004 and 2012, the NYPD made 4.4 million stops, with over 80% of those stopped being Black and Latino people. The policy has led to violent police misconduct and has been opposed by civil rights organizations.

The NYPD has conducted millions of stop-and-frisks in New York City in the last two decades, with a disproportionate number targeting Black individuals. In 2023, the NYPD recorded over 16,000 stops, with nearly 60% of those stopped being Black and 30% Latinx. The majority of those stopped are innocent, as no evidence of wrongdoing is found. While the number of overall stops has decreased in recent years, the rate of frisking or searching civilians has risen sharply.

Surveillance

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment is particularly relevant to the topic of surveillance, as it places restraints on the government when it conducts searches or seizes a person or property.

Electronic surveillance, including the search and seizure of electronic devices, falls under the purview of the Fourth Amendment. Courts have been grappling with the applicability of the amendment in electronic searches, especially with the increasing prevalence of crimes occurring electronically. Evidence obtained from computers, hard drives, or other electronic devices can be crucial in criminal investigations. However, the amendment requires that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant before conducting such searches.

Wiretapping is another form of surveillance that the Fourth Amendment addresses. The use of wiretaps by law enforcement has been a contentious issue, with cases like Nardone v. United States in the 20th century ruling that evidence obtained through warrantless wiretaps was inadmissible in court.

The Fourth Amendment also impacts the use of aerial surveillance, whether by piloted aircraft or drones. This type of surveillance raises questions about what constitutes a "search" and how it can be justified under the amendment.

In summary, the Fourth Amendment plays a crucial role in regulating surveillance activities by the government and law enforcement agencies. It ensures that individuals' privacy and security are protected from unreasonable intrusions, while also allowing for legitimate searches and seizures based on probable cause and supported by warrants. The interpretation and application of the Fourth Amendment continue to evolve as technology advances and new challenges arise in the realm of surveillance.

Frequently asked questions