Bill+of+Rights+charch19

= The 4th Amendment =
 * //"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." //**

==Description == The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that if anyone of law intends to search you or your property, they must provide a warrant from a court. The reason the Fourth Amendment was created was to provide privacy and security for an individual person against personal invasions by the government and its officials.

Historical Applications
Home > Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful: A Person > Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) > Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) Schools > New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985) Cars > Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), > Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), > United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002). > Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009). > Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). > Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
 * Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
 * If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
 * If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
 * If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
 * If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
 * When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.
 * School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.
 * Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.
 * An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.
 * An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.
 * The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion.
 * Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion.
 * An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches.[[image:http://cdn1.politicaloutcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/4th-amendment.jpg width="449" height="272" align="right" caption="politicaloutcast.com"]]

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985). > Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). > Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004). > City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). [] **Today's Application** These are four cases in which people had their rights violated: go[]
 * A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving.
 * A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway.
 * However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.
 * //Kentucky v. King:// Police pursuing a suspected drug dealer stopped outside an apartment, where they smelled marijuana. They knocked, announced themselves as police, heard a toilet flushing and suspected their suspect was destroying evidence. Turns out they were completely wrong – their suspect was not inside, and the occupant, Hollis King, was using the bathroom – but he was arrested without a warrant for possession of marijuana and cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that officers are allowed to act with urgency and enter without a warrant if they suspect evidence is being destroyed. However, they still have to demonstrate they had probable cause to do so – in other words, they can’t wander their beat, breaking down doors willy-nilly, they have to demonstrate a reason.
 * //United States v. Jones//: Law enforcement tracked Antoine Jones, a suspected drug dealer in Washington, D.C., for almost a month by attaching a GPS device to his Jeep. They did not have a warrant. Jones was sentenced to life in prison for drug-trafficking conspiracy. In February 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that GPS tracking is a form of search and requires a warrant.
 * //Florence v. County of Burlington//: A New Jersey man was arrested during a traffic stop because his records showed he had not paid a previous traffic fine. He had paid the fine – the record was in error – but Florence was detained in two jails, strip-searched in each and forced to take a delousing shower. He was “petrified” and “humiliated” and sued the county, saying it had violated his civil rights. The Supreme Court ruled against him in April 2012, saying that the corrections officials had the right to strip-search incoming prisoners if they determined it was necessary to emsure the safety and security of the prison.
 * //United States v. Flores-Lopez//: An Indiana man was arrested for dealing drugs, and law enforcement searched his cell phone without a warrant to track down his supplier. They argued that a warrant was unnecessary, since speed was essential. Data on the cell phone could be accessed remotely and deleted, and would not be able to be used as evidence. A federal appeals court sided with the police, saying that as a matter of urgency, police have the right to search a cell phone without a warrant.