the reasonableness clause and the equal protection component of due process are the two parts to the fourth amendment.
the reasonableness clause and the equal protection component of due process are the two parts to the fourth amendment.
there are two parts to the fourth amendment the reasonableness clause and the?
equal protection component of due process
the court held that reasonableness, not individualized suspicion, is the touchstone of the fourth amendment. it has been proposed that fourth amendment rights be extended to probationers and parolees, but such proposals have not gained traction. there is not much that remains of the fourth amendment rights of probationers after waiving their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. an essay called "they released me from my cage...but they still keep me handcuffed" was written in response to the "samson" decision.
probable cause
in the case of "terry v. ohio", the supreme court established a practical standpoint on “mere questioning”, effectively giving law enforcement officials the ability to speak with citizens, and even search them, in certain situations without necessarily being held accountable to the restrictions of the fourth amendment. in this case, an officer approached three men he suspected of casing a building for a robbery or stick up. he confronted them, questioned them, and for the purposes of his own safety, patted them down. the officer found that they were carrying concealed weapons, which were later used as evidence that they were about to attempt a robbery. the case hinged on whether the weapons were admissible as evidence under the fourth amendment, which protects against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures, and prevents evidence collected in such a manner from being used in court. the opinion of the court was that in lieu of the circumstances, in which the officer had reason to fear for his own safety, the pat-down was reasonable and did not constitute a search to which the fourth amendment is applicable. specifically, the court held that “though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required” and “the reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.” while these particular circumstances warranted a search based on the safety of the officer, the decision of the court allowed for a greater freedom of officers to confront and question individuals in other situations. the supreme court has frequently referenced terry v. ohio and the principle of “mere questioning” in later cases, including ins v. delgado. the most important formulation of the principle as it relates to delgado is that “law enforcement officials can approach and speak to individuals without the constraints of the fourth amendment’s reasonableness standard, so long as the encounter is consensual.”
immigration and naturalization service v. delgado