the fourth amendment to the constitution covers unreasonable searches and seizures and what constitutes probable cause.
the fourth amendment to the constitution covers unreasonable searches and seizures and what constitutes probable cause.
the fourth amendment to the constitution covers unreasonable searches and seizures and?
what constitutes probable cause
fourth amendment case law deals with three main issues: what government activities are "searches" and "seizures", what constitutes probable cause to conduct searches and seizures, and how violations of fourth amendment rights should be addressed. early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to physical intrusion of property or persons, but with "katz v. united states" (1967), the supreme court held that its protections extend to intrusions on the privacy of individuals as well as to physical locations. a warrant is needed for most search and seizure activities, but the court has carved out a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.
fourth amendment to the united states constitution
wolf v. colorado, 338 u.s. 25 (1949), was a united states supreme court case in which the court held 6-3 that, while the fourth amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the fourth amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. in "weeks v. united states", 232 u.s. 383 (1914), the court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the fourth amendment. the "wolf" court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the fourth amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the weeks doctrine (the exclusionary rule) had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection (i.e. the states had their own rules to deter police officers from conducting warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures). however, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the court overruled wolf in "mapp v. ohio", 367 u.s. 643 (1961). this landmark case made the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.
wolf v. colorado