Mediaboss Marketing

PREMIUM LEGAL RESOURCES LEGAL FORMS ASK A LAWYER

'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.'

To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest. See id.

Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy'); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 ('66) (compulsory blood test 'plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment').' '[f]or the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619; accord Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, No. 95-590, 1995 WL 373274, at *3 (June 26,'95) ('the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is `reasonableness''). A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83).

Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).

The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 ('85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 ('69).

Nevertheless, everyday 'booking' procedures routinely require even the merely accused to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether investigation of the crime involves fingerprint evidence. See Smith v. U.S., 324 F.2d 879, 882 (D.C. Cir.'63) (Burger, J.) ('it is elementary that a person in lawful custody may be required to submit to . . . fingerprinting . . . as part of the routine identification processes'); Napolitano v. U.S., 340 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir.'65) ('Taking fingerprints [prior to bail] is universally standard procedure, and no violation of constitutional rights.'). Thus, in the fingerprinting context, there exists a constitutionally significant distinction between the gathering of fingerprints from free persons to determine their guilt of an unsolved criminal offense and the gathering of fingerprints for identification purposes from persons within the lawful custody of the state.

Although the drawing of blood from free persons generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a person has committed a criminal offense and that his blood will reveal evidence relevant to that offense, see Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-71; U.S. v. Chapel, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. at 5753-54 (9th Cir.'95) (en banc), the absence of such a warrant does not a fortiori establish a violation of the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.

Read more here:
Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained - Law

The Fourth Amendment is destroyed by the Roberts led Supreme Court.
In May of 2011 the SCOTUS ruled on a lower state courts decision to throw out a case of drug possession because there was no valid search warrant for the search to be legal. This all took place...

By: Paul La Bonte

Originally posted here:
The Fourth Amendment is destroyed by the Roberts led Supreme Court. - Video

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from a Madison County man who claimed police violated the Fourth Amendment when they discovered more than 170,000 images of child pornography on his personal computer.

By doing so, the justices upheld an eight-year prison sentence of Donald Lemasters of London.

A state court of appeals last year ruled that while the Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure, Lemasters had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he downloads information or photos from a subscriber.

The justices did not make any comment, but simply refused to hear Lemasters appeal. Lemasters pleaded no contest in 2012 to charges that he downloaded photos of nude children, with some involved in sexual acts. There was no evidence that Lemasters took any of the photos himself.

In 2011, a detective with a task force that investigates use of child pornography photos in the area asked a judge for an investigative subpoena to determine the user of an IP address suspected of downloading childrens pornography.

After learning the IP address belonged to Lemasters, Madison County sheriff officers obtained a search warrant and discovered the images on Lemasters computer and DVDs he had made from the images he downloaded.

In a separate case from Ohio, the justices vacated a ruling last year by the Ohio Supreme Court that upheld a 10-year mandatory sentence of David Willan of Akron for mortgage and securities violations.

The justices ruled that the states high court needed to consider a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that a mandatory sentence needs to be considered by a jury before it can be imposed.

Andrea Whitaker, an attorney for Willan, said the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could lead to a much shorter sentence for Willan.

Read more here:
U.S. Supreme Court rules against area man in child porn case

By Joe Carbonari

The question first becomes, How much of our privacy are we willing to cede to those entrusted to protect us? Then we must ask, How are we, average citizens, to know enough to rationally make the decisions required? Realistically, we cant. Too much secrecy and technology is involved.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks we naturally tilted more to the security side, sacrificing some privacy. That was understandable. Now many of us feel that we may have tilted too far, particularly where metadata is concerned. Our phone records, emails, financial information, and health history are all either compromised or at risk. Shall we shrug and acquiesce? What actual power do we have?

We have the power of the ballot. We have the power to choose who makes the big decisions for us, what processes they must follow and who checks up on them. Their courage, intelligence, and character are key. Please choose carefully.

By Tim Baldwin

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that our DNA is subject to privacy interests, that governments use of drones is limited by the Fourth Amendment, and that government cannot affix GPS tracking on vehicles without a warrant.

It is amazing a constitutional Amendment ratified in 1791 still has a significant impact on limiting government action. This proves, in part, that Amendments to the Constitution (see, Article V, U.S.C.) work to limit government power.

The executives of government naturally care less for privacy rights, given the nature of their law-enforcement role; but thankfully state and federal judiciaries have largely and consistently been faithful at limiting big government tendencies through the Fourth Amendment.

Originally posted here:
Big Government Meets the Fourth Amendment

SCOTUSblog on camera: Orin Kerr -- Part five
Part five -- The generalists "The Roberts Court"; "the Fourth Amendment Court"; and understanding constitutional values, issues and change.

By: SCOTUSblogoncamera

See the rest here:
SCOTUSblog on camera: Orin Kerr -- Part five - Video