4th Amendment

The fourth amendment states 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. It was written in the late 1700s because of the strong objections to the Writs Assistance or general warrants. The Writs Assistance allowed officials to enter any home, search and seize belongings. The Fourth Amendment now secures people in their homes, belongings, documents and their own selves.

What the fourth amendment does now is gives privacy and it puts limits on the law in searches and seizures. Searching persons and property and seizing properties are legal but can be done illegally and unlawfully. That is when the Supreme Court comes into play. Most people don't know the fourth amendment and therefore are unaware of their rights. In most cases, people either resist to protect themselves or they give up rights they don't know they have.

An officer is allowed to search a person or property when they have a search warrant and reasonable cause-meaning there must be a reason an individual will be searched. It is not a search unless the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz v. United States, 1967). Reasonable expectation means that the individual believes the property is private to the public and cannot be searched without consent or warrant. Seizure is when the obtained evidence is confiscated or person is arrested.

The Florida v. Riley, 1989 Supreme Court case is an example of a legal search. The County Sheriff was told Riley was growing marijuana in back of his mobile home in a greenhouse. The greenhouse could not be seen through the front of the home so he looked at his house from a helicopter four hundred feet over his house and saw the marijuana in the greenhouse. He obtained a warrant and Riley was arrested for possession of an illegal substance. Riley argues that he had reasonable expectation the activities inside his greenhouse were private which meant the Sheriff conducted an illegal search while in the helicopter. In the final argument it was agreed that Riley had no reasonable expectation of privacy and the helicopter surveillance was not a search. (Wikipedia.org)

In most cases, a warrant is needed to conduct a search like Florida v. Riley. It can be obtained from a judge or magistrate (wikipedia.org). In order for the warrant to be issued, there must be probable cause or a reason for the search of illegal activity. Along with probable cause, the officer must give a specific location where the search will be. During the search, areas other than what is specified on the warrant may not be searched. Whatever evidence found under an illegal search may not be used. That's where the term fruit of the poisonous tree came from. Evidence, fruit, obtained illegally, poisonous tree, is no good and cannot be used.

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 is an example of fruit of the poisonous tree. Ernesto Miranda, arrested on kidnapping and rape charges (encyclopedia.com), confessed to his crimes but was not read his rights. Before being interrogated, the suspect must be informed of their rights. Because Miranda was not informed of his rights, the evidence he gave to the police could not be used against him.

The exclusionary rule also came from the illegal obtaining of evidence. It states that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used in the court of law. Many cops violate the fourth amendment by seizing evidence unlawfully. The exclusionary rule was made to stop police from doing so. This way when they do get the illegal evidence it will be useless. This encourages police to follow procedure the right way so they can stop the criminal activity instead of letting them go because it was went about in the wrong way.

There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The inevitable doctrine stated secondary evidence found from primary evidence could be admitted in court. The attenuation exception states there must be a clear connection between the illegal search and the evidence found to prove the search was in fact illegal. The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted