Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property -- whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.
Lawmakers and the courts have put in place legal safeguards to ensure that law enforcement officers interfere with individuals' Fourth Amendment rights only under limited circumstances, and through specific methods.
What Does the Fourth Amendment Protect?
In the criminal law realm, Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" protections extend to:
- A law enforcement officer's physical apprehension or "seizure" of a person, by way of a stop or arrest; and
- Police searches of places and items in which an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy -- his or her person, clothing, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, apartment, hotel room, and place of business, to name a few examples.
The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.
When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?
The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:
- An individual is stopped for police questioning while walking down the street.
- An individual is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, and the police officer searches the vehicle's trunk.
- An individual is arrested.
- Police officers enter an individual's house to place him or her under arrest.
- Police officers enter an individual's apartment to search for evidence of crime.
- Police officers enter a corporation's place of business to search for evidence of crime.
- Police officers confiscate an individual's vehicle or personal property and place it under police control.
Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement's legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:
What if My Fourth Amendment Rights Are Violated?
When law enforcement officers violate an individual's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, and a search or seizure is deemed unlawful, any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated. For example:
- An arrest is found to violate the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause or a valid warrant. Any evidence obtained through that unlawful arrest, such as a confession, will be kept out of the case.
- A police search of a home is conducted in violation of the homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights, because no search warrant was issued and no special circumstances justified the search. Any evidence obtained as a result of that search cannot be used against the homeowner in a criminal case.
Get a Free Case Review from a Criminal Defense Attorney
The rules of search and seizure are notoriously complicated. You don't have to stay confused though, and the complex rules mean that an expert can often find problems with searches that result in evidence being thrown out of court. Ask an experienced attorney to examine search and seizure procedures in your case for violations of your rights at a free case review.
Courts recognize the role of the United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment in protecting ordinary citizens against unreasonable government searches imposed upon themselves, their homes, private papers and personal property. Defining the extent to which the Amendment applies to privacy rights of public school students, however, continues to pose a legal dilemma. Public schools provide education to millions of children each day in learning environments that are increasingly influenced by the availability of drugs and weapons. The need to limit criminal behaviors and illegal materials on school grounds, often compels officials to order searches of students' lockers, clothing, purses, and automobiles; they require students to submit to random drug tests and examination by drug-sniffing dogs. While the legal system has defined some boundaries regarding searches and seizures in public schools, debate on the issue continues to challenge educators, students and courts of law.
Keywords Confiscate; Due Process; Fourteenth Amendment; Fourth Amendment; In Loco Parentis; Informer; Intrusive Searches; Probable Cause; Reasonable Suspicion; Search; Search Warrant; Seizure
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures on persons, houses, papers, and private property. The Amendment requires government authorities to have probable cause before conducting search and seizure on a place, person, or thing. This Amendment protects the rights of ordinary citizens to privacy.
In the last half of the 20th century, the extent of the Fourth Amendment's protections when applied to students in public schools began to be challenged. Were students "ordinary citizens" under the definitions of Constitutional law? Were they entitled to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures while on school grounds? Were schoolteachers and administrators under legal obligation, equal to police officers and other government authorities, to show probable cause and obtain warrants prior to searching students and students' belongings?
The pursuit of answers gained momentum following several Supreme Court rulings concerning students' rights to free speech, free expression, and access to free education. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court recognized school officials' need to maintain order and control of pupils' conduct, but determined that students did not lose their constitutional rights upon entering a public school facility (Heder, 1999). The ruling protected the rights of Des Moines students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, but it also served as a foundation for future Fourth Amendment decisions involving nation-wide search and seizure practices in schools.
Another factor that influenced the legal definition of students' rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, was increased availability of illegal drugs and weapons in the United States. In nationwide studies conducted in the 1990s, students admitted bringing approximately 135,000 guns into schools each day; twenty percent of high schoolers reported carrying some type of weapon to school at least once a month (Mitchell, 1998). A 2005 survey of teenagers and parents, conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, found 62% of high school students and 28% of middle school students attended schools where drugs were used, kept, or sold; the numbers represented a 47% and 41% increase, respectively, over the previous three years. As dangers associated with illegal materials on school grounds multiplied, so did the frequency and invasiveness of school-authorized searches and seizures (as cited in Finn & Willert, 2006).
If a principal suspects weapons are located in a student's locker, does he have the legal right to look inside? If a teacher asks a student to remove his jacket and empty his pockets, is he acting in the capacity of "substitute parent" or representative of the United States government? Are metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs and strip searches appropriate in school settings?
Until the middle of the 20th century, the answers to such questions were rarely debated. The role of schoolteachers and administrators was generally viewed by courts and families as 'in loco parentis,' -- in place of the parents. Searches and seizures conducted on public school students and their belongings were not considered a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Just as parents can enter their child's bedroom and look through drawers and closets for particular objects, it was acceptable for public school teachers and administrators to search through students' lockers, purses, and pockets.
According to Heder (1999), the concept of search and seizure as a legal issue in public schools was nonexistent prior to the 1960s. For most of the 20th century, he notes, education-related court battles traditionally revolved around issues of educational quality, roles of parents, and compulsory laws for school attendance.
In the latter half of the century, however, young people's access to drugs and guns prompted school officials to rely on extensive searches of students to uncover suspected criminal behaviors and illegal materials. Continuing to operate under the conventional definition of in loco parentis, schools rejected students' claims of constitutionally-protected privacy, arguing that maintenance of school safety took precedence. In the late 1970s, students appealed to the nation's courts for clarification and support of their Fourth Amendment rights.
The following court cases describe a few search and seizure lawsuits filed by students and parents against schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The cases outline some of the challenges lower courts encountered in defining the application of terms like "government" and "unreasonable" in regard to public school environments. The cases also give historical perspective to the difficulties associated with balancing students' needs for privacy with school officials' duties to maintain safe learning opportunities.
Bellnier v. Lund
In 1977, a teacher in New York learned that three dollars had been stolen from a student's coat pocket and ordered a strip search of all students in the classroom. Students were taken to the school's restrooms, ordered to strip down to their undergarments, and then their clothing was searched by a group of teachers and school officials. Students were allowed to return to their classroom when the search failed to locate the stolen money. A second search was conducted on the students' books, desks, and coats. Again, the missing money was not found. In a lawsuit filed against the school, a district court ruled in Bellnier v. Lund that although the teacher likely had a reasonable suspicion that someone in the classroom had taken the money, the teacher did not have sufficient facts to substantiate the intrusiveness of the search to which students were subjected. The court ruled that specific and reliable information must be available prior to an invasive search of a particular student or students by school officials (Essex, 2003).
Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
In 1978, officials at Goose Creek Independent School District in Louisiana were concerned with the increasing numbers of drug and alcohol problems they were encountering among students. In an effort to combat the trouble, school officials hired a company that specialized in drug-sniffing dogs to conduct an unannounced inspection of the students' lockers, book bags, cars, and clothes. The dogs were taken into the schools while classes were in session and sniff-searched the students and their belongings. If a dog signaled that a bag or locker had an illegal substance, the particular student was ordered to submit the article for search. If the dog signaled that a student was in possession of an illegal substance, the student was taken to the school's office and searched ("Horton v. Goose Creek," 1999).
Several students sued the school district claiming the searches violated their Fourth Amendment rights to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as their Fourteenth Amendment rights which guaranteed they would not be deprived of property or freedom without due process. The students claimed that searches by drug-sniffing dogs were upsetting and embarrassing; one student detailed her fear of dogs and the negative effect the event had on her ability to succeed on an important examination that day.
The case, Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District (1982), was initially decided in favor of the school. But upon appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals split its decision into two separate rulings. The court decided that dogs could sniff students' lockers and cars without violating Fourth Amendment rights since such an action was not considered a "search" under the definition of the law. Dogs could not sniff students, however, since the physical act of dogs' noses touching them would intrude on privacy. The court further ruled that using dogs to sniff every...