movie about stealing the declaration of independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Treasure_(film)
National Treasure (film) - Wikipedia
2004-06-02
Authority control General VIAF
<div><div>
	<p>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
	</div><div>
<table><tbody><tr><th>National Treasure</th></tr><tr><td><a href="/wiki/File:Movie_national_treasure.JPG"></a><p>Theatrical release poster</p></td></tr><tr><th>Directed by</th><td><a href="/wiki/Jon_Turteltaub">Jon Turteltaub</a></td></tr><tr><th>Screenplay by</th><td><div>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Jim_Kouf">Jim Kouf</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Cormac_Wibberley_and_Marianne_Wibberley">Cormac Wibberley</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Cormac_Wibberley_and_Marianne_Wibberley">Marianne Wibberley</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th>Story by</th><td><div>
<ul><li>Jim Kouf</li>
<li>Oren Aviv</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Charles_Segars">Charles Segars</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th>Produced by</th><td><div>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Jerry_Bruckheimer">Jerry Bruckheimer</a></li>
<li>Jon Turteltaub</li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th>Starring</th><td><div>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Nicolas_Cage">Nicolas Cage</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Harvey_Keitel">Harvey Keitel</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Jon_Voight">Jon Voight</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Diane_Kruger">Diane Kruger</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Sean_Bean">Sean Bean</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Justin_Bartha">Justin Bartha</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Christopher_Plummer">Christopher Plummer</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th>Cinematography</th><td><a href="/wiki/Caleb_Deschanel">Caleb Deschanel</a></td></tr><tr><th>Edited by</th><td><a href="/wiki/William_Goldenberg">William Goldenberg</a></td></tr><tr><th>Music by</th><td><a href="/wiki/Trevor_Rabin">Trevor Rabin</a></td></tr><tr><th><p>Production<br />companies</p></th><td><div>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Walt_Disney_Pictures">Walt Disney Pictures</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Jerry_Bruckheimer_Films">Jerry Bruckheimer Films</a></li>
<li>Junction Entertainment</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Saturn_Films">Saturn Films</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th>Distributed by</th><td><a href="/wiki/Buena_Vista_Pictures_Distribution">Buena Vista Pictures Distribution</a></td></tr><tr><th><p>Release date</p></th><td><div>
<ul><li>November 19, 2004</li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th><p>Running time</p></th><td>131 minutes</td></tr><tr><th>Country</th><td>United States</td></tr><tr><th>Language</th><td>English</td></tr><tr><th>Budget</th><td>$100 million<sup><a href="#cite_note-BOM-1">[1]</a></sup></td></tr><tr><th>Box office</th><td>$347.5 million<sup><a href="#cite_note-BOM-1">[1]</a></sup></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p><i><b>National Treasure</b></i> is a 2004 American <a href="/wiki/Action-adventure_film">action-adventure</a> <a href="/wiki/Heist_film">heist film</a><sup><a href="#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup> released by <a href="/wiki/Walt_Disney_Pictures">Walt Disney Pictures</a>. It was written by <a href="/wiki/Jim_Kouf">Jim Kouf</a> and the <a href="/wiki/Cormac_and_Marianne_Wibberley">Wibberleys</a>, produced by <a href="/wiki/Jerry_Bruckheimer">Jerry Bruckheimer</a>, and directed by <a href="/wiki/Jon_Turteltaub">Jon Turteltaub</a>. It is the first film in the <a href="/wiki/National_Treasure_(franchise)"><i>National Treasure</i> franchise</a> and stars <a href="/wiki/Nicolas_Cage">Nicolas Cage</a> in the lead role, <a href="/wiki/Harvey_Keitel">Harvey Keitel</a>, <a href="/wiki/Jon_Voight">Jon Voight</a>, <a href="/wiki/Diane_Kruger">Diane Kruger</a>, <a href="/wiki/Sean_Bean">Sean Bean</a>, <a href="/wiki/Justin_Bartha">Justin Bartha</a> and <a href="/wiki/Christopher_Plummer">Christopher Plummer</a>. In the film, Benjamin Franklin Gates, a historian, along with friend Riley Poole and archivist Abigail Chase, search for a massive lost <a href="/wiki/Freemasonry">Freemason</a> treasure, to which a map is hidden on the back of the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a>.
</p><p><i>National Treasure</i> was released worldwide on November 19, 2004. The film grossed $347 million worldwide and received mixed reviews from critics, who praised the action scenes and performances but criticized the premise and screenplay. A sequel, <i><a href="/wiki/National_Treasure:_Book_of_Secrets">National Treasure: Book of Secrets</a></i>, was released in 2007.
</p><p>At the 2022 D23 Expo, a sequel TV series, <i><a href="/wiki/National_Treasure:_Edge_of_History">National Treasure: Edge of History</a></i>, was announced. It was released on the Disney+ streaming service on December 14, 2022.
</p>
<h2>Plot[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=1">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>Benjamin Franklin Gates is an American historian, <a href="/wiki/Cryptographer">cryptographer</a>, and treasure hunter. When Ben was young, his grandfather John told him that, in 1832, <a href="/wiki/Charles_Carroll_of_Carrollton">Charles Carroll</a> passed on a secret to their ancestor of a fabled treasure hidden in America by the <a href="/wiki/Knights_Templar">Knights Templar</a>, <a href="/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States">Founding Fathers</a>, and <a href="/wiki/Freemasons">Freemasons</a>. Carroll's secret was a clue leading to the treasure: the phrase "the secret lies with Charlotte". While Ben is convinced by the story, his skeptical father, Patrick, dismisses it as nonsense.
</p><p>Thirty years later, Ben and his friend, computer expert Riley Poole, head an expedition financed by wealthy Ian Howe to find the <i>Charlotte</i>, revealed to be a ship lost in the <a href="/wiki/Arctic">Arctic</a>. Within the ship, they find a <a href="/wiki/Meerschaum_pipe">meerschaum pipe</a>, whose engravings reveal the next clue is on the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a>. When Ian reveals himself to be a <a href="/wiki/Crime_boss">crime boss</a> and suggests stealing the Declaration, a fight ensues, and the group splits. Ben and Riley report Ian's plan to the <a href="/wiki/FBI">FBI</a> and Abigail Chase of the <a href="/wiki/National_Archives_and_Records_Administration">National Archives</a>, but no one believes them. Ben decides to protect the Declaration by removing it from the Archives' preservation room during a gala event. Obtaining Abigail's fingerprints, he successfully obtains the Declaration, only to be spotted by Ian's group just as they break in to steal it. Ben tries to leave via the <a href="/wiki/Gift_shop">gift shop</a> but has to pay for the Declaration when the cashier mistakes it for a souvenir copy. Suspecting something amiss, Abigail confronts Ben and takes back the document. Ian promptly kidnaps her, but Ben and Riley rescue Abigail, tricking Ian by leaving behind a souvenir copy of the Declaration. FBI Agent Sadusky begins tracking Ben down.
</p><p>Going to Patrick's house, the trio studies the Declaration and discovers an <a href="/wiki/Ottendorf_cipher">Ottendorf cipher</a> written in invisible ink. The message refers to <a href="/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin">Benjamin Franklin</a>'s <a href="/wiki/Silence_Dogood">Silence Dogood</a> letters. Patrick formerly owned them, but donated them to the <a href="/wiki/Franklin_Institute">Franklin Institute</a>. Paying a schoolboy to view the letters and decipher the code for them, Ben, Riley, and Abigail discover a message pointing to the bell tower of <a href="/wiki/Independence_Hall">Independence Hall</a>. Pursued by Ian, they find a brick containing a pair of spectacles with multiple colored lenses, which, when used to read the back of the Declaration, reveal a clue pointing to <a href="/wiki/Trinity_Church_(Manhattan)">Trinity Church</a>. Ian's associates chase the trio through <a href="/wiki/Philadelphia">Philadelphia</a> until the FBI arrests Ben. Abigail and Riley lose the Declaration to Ian, but Abigail convinces Ian to help them rescue Ben in exchange for the next clue. Ian agrees, arranging a meeting at the <a href="/wiki/USS_Intrepid_(CV-11)">USS <i>Intrepid</i></a>, where they help Ben evade the FBI.
</p><p>Ian returns the Declaration and asks for the next clue, but when Ben remains coy, Ian reveals he has taken Patrick hostage. They travel to the Trinity Church, where they find an underground passage that appears to lead to a dead end, lit by a lone lantern. Patrick claims it is a reference to the Midnight Ride of <a href="/wiki/Paul_Revere">Paul Revere</a>, pointing Ian to the <a href="/wiki/Old_North_Church">Old North Church</a> in <a href="/wiki/Boston">Boston</a>. Ian traps Ben, Abigail, Riley, and Patrick in the chamber, heading for Boston, which was Patrick's intent as the clue was fictitious and he knew that Ian would betray them. Ben then finds a notch the meerschaum pipe fits into, opening a large chamber containing the treasure, with a staircase to the surface. Ben contacts Sadusky, who is actually a Freemason, and surrenders the Declaration and the treasure's location in exchange for letting Abigail go free, giving the Gates family and Riley credit for the discovery, and no prison sentence. On a tip from Ben, the FBI arrests Ian for kidnapping and other crimes.
</p><p>Later, Ben and Abigail have started a relationship, while Riley is somewhat upset that Ben turned down the 10% finder's fee for the treasure so the entire collection could go to museums. But the 1% he did accept has still netted them all significant wealth.
</p>
<h2>Cast[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=2">edit</a>]</h2>
<div><div><p><a href="/wiki/File:Nicolas_Cage_2011_CC.jpg"></a></p></div><div><p><a href="/wiki/File:Sean_Bean_TIFF_2015.2.jpg"></a></p></div></div>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Nicolas_Cage">Nicolas Cage</a> as Benjamin Franklin Gates:<sup><a href="#cite_note-3">[3]</a></sup><br />An American treasure hunter and cryptographer.
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Hunter_Gomez">Hunter Gomez</a> as young Benjamin Gates</li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Sean_Bean">Sean Bean</a> as Ian Howe:<br />An entrepreneur, crime boss and treasure hunter who is a former friend of Benjamin Gates.<sup><a href="#cite_note-SeanBean-4">[4]</a></sup></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Diane_Kruger">Diane Kruger</a> as Dr. Abigail Chase:<br />An archivist at the National Archives who aids Benjamin Gates in treasure hunting.</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Justin_Bartha">Justin Bartha</a> as Riley Poole:<br />A sardonic computer expert and friend of Benjamin Gates.</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Jon_Voight">Jon Voight</a> as Patrick Henry Gates:<br />A former treasure hunter and the father of Benjamin Gates.</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Harvey_Keitel">Harvey Keitel</a> as Agent Peter Sadusky:<br />An FBI Special Agent in charge of the theft of the Declaration of Independence.</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Christopher_Plummer">Christopher Plummer</a> as John Adams Gates:<br />The father of Patrick Gates and the grandfather of Benjamin Gates.</li></ul>
<p><a href="/wiki/Jack_Koenig">Jack Koenig</a> portrays a young version of Founding Father <a href="/wiki/Charles_Carroll_of_Carrollton">Charles Carroll</a>; <a href="/wiki/David_Dayan_Fisher">David Dayan Fisher</a> appears as Shaw, <a href="/wiki/Stewart_Finlay-McLennan">Stewart Finlay-McLennan</a> as Powell, <a href="/wiki/Oleg_Taktarov">Oleg Taktarov</a> as Viktor Shippen, and Stephen Pope as Phil McGregor (Ian's henchmen); <a href="/wiki/Annie_Parisse">Annie Parisse</a>, <a href="/wiki/Mark_Pellegrino">Mark Pellegrino</a>, <a href="/wiki/Armando_Riesco">Armando Riesco</a>, and <a href="/wiki/Erik_King">Erik King</a> play agents Dawes, Ted Johnson, Hendricks, and Colfax, respectively. <a href="/wiki/Jason_Earles">Jason Earles</a> portrays Thomas Gates.
</p>
<h2>Production[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=3">edit</a>]</h2>
<h3>Development[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=4">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>By early 1999, it was revealed that <a href="/wiki/Jon_Turteltaub">Jon Turteltaub</a> was developing <i>National Treasure</i> based upon an idea developed by Oren Aviv and <a href="/wiki/Charles_Segars">Charles Segars</a> in 1997, with a script by <a href="/wiki/Jim_Kouf">Jim Kouf</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Variety1-5">[5]</a></sup> By 2001, the project was relocated to <a href="/wiki/Touchstone_Pictures">Touchstone Pictures</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Variety2-6">[6]</a></sup>
</p>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:NationalTreasureFilmSet.jpg"></a></p><div><p>Film set for the underground chambers beneath Trinity Church</p></div></div>
<p>In May 2003, <a href="/wiki/Nicolas_Cage">Nicolas Cage</a> was cast as the lead.<sup><a href="#cite_note-NicolasCage-7">[7]</a></sup> New drafts were written by nine scribers, including <a href="/wiki/Cormac_and_Marianne_Wibberley">Cormac and Marianne Wibberley</a>,<sup><a href="#cite_note-NicolasCage-7">[7]</a></sup> <a href="/wiki/E._Max_Frye">E. Max Frye</a>, and <a href="/wiki/Jon_Turteltaub">Jon Turteltaub</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Draft2003-8">[8]</a></sup> By October, <a href="/wiki/Sean_Bean">Sean Bean</a> was cast.<sup><a href="#cite_note-SeanBean-4">[4]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Filming locations[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=5">edit</a>]</h3>
<p><i>National Treasure</i> was filmed primarily in <a href="/wiki/Washington,_D.C.">Washington</a>, <a href="/wiki/New_York_City">New York</a>, <a href="/wiki/Philadelphia">Philadelphia</a> and <a href="/wiki/Utah">Utah</a>. Most scenes were filmed <a href="/wiki/Location_shooting">on location</a>, with the exceptions of the <a href="/wiki/Independence_Hall">Independence Hall</a> scene, which was filmed at the replica of Independence Hall at <a href="/wiki/Knott%27s_Berry_Farm">Knott's Berry Farm</a>, and the Arctic scene, which was filmed in Utah.<sup><a href="#cite_note-imdblocations-9">[9]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Soundtrack[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=6">edit</a>]</h2>
<table><tbody><tr><th>National Treasure (Original Score)</th></tr><tr><th><a href="/wiki/Film_score">Film score</a> by <div><p><a href="/wiki/Trevor_Rabin">Trevor Rabin</a></p></div></th></tr><tr><th>Released</th><td>November 16, 2004</td></tr><tr><th>Recorded</th><td>2004</td></tr><tr><th><a href="/wiki/Music_genre">Genre</a></th><td>Stage &amp; screen</td></tr><tr><th>Length</th><td>38:45</td></tr><tr><th><a href="/wiki/Record_label">Label</a></th><td><a href="/wiki/Hollywood_Records">Hollywood</a></td></tr><tr><th><a href="/wiki/Record_producer">Producer</a></th><td>Trevor Rabin</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Professional ratings</caption><tbody><tr><th>Review scores</th></tr><tr><th>Source</th><th>Rating</th></tr><tr><td><a href="/wiki/AllMusic">AllMusic</a></td><td><sup><a href="#cite_note-10">[10]</a></sup></td></tr></tbody></table>
<div><p>All tracks are written by <a href="/wiki/Trevor_Rabin">Trevor Rabin</a>.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><abbr>No.</abbr></th><th>Title</th><th>Length</th></tr><tr><th>1.</th><td>"National Treasure Suite"</td><td>3:17</td></tr><tr><th>2.</th><td>"Ben"</td><td>4:03</td></tr><tr><th>3.</th><td>"Finding Charlotte"</td><td>1:04</td></tr><tr><th>4.</th><td>"Library of Congress"</td><td>2:27</td></tr><tr><th>5.</th><td>"Preparation Montage"</td><td>4:53</td></tr><tr><th>6.</th><td>"Arrival at National Archives"</td><td>1:54</td></tr><tr><th>7.</th><td>"The Chase"</td><td>4:22</td></tr><tr><th>8.</th><td>"Declaration of Independence"</td><td>1:43</td></tr><tr><th>9.</th><td>"Foot Chase"</td><td>3:34</td></tr><tr><th>10.</th><td>"Spectacle Discovery"</td><td>3:18</td></tr><tr><th>11.</th><td>"Interrogation"</td><td>4:30</td></tr><tr><th>12.</th><td>"Treasure"</td><td>3:39</td></tr><tr><th>Total length:</th><td>38:45</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<h2>Portrayal of Declaration of Independence[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=7">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>The film's suggestion that the original Declaration of Independence still has clearly visible ink is inaccurate. The document's ink dried over time due to exposure to damaging lighting, with little ink still existing by 1876.<sup><a href="#cite_note-11">[11]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-12">[12]</a></sup> But viewers are often surprised to learn that many plot points in <i>National Treasure</i> and its sequel are inspired by true, often little-known, events in history. Since 2020, an independent podcast, the <i>National Treasure Hunt</i>, has conducted deep dives into many of these historical events.<sup><a href="#cite_note-13">[13]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Reception[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=8">edit</a>]</h2>
<h3>Box office[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=9">edit</a>]</h3>
<p><i>National Treasure</i> earned $11 million on its opening day in the United States, ahead of <a href="/wiki/Paramount_Pictures">Paramount</a> &amp; <a href="/wiki/Nickelodeon_Movies">Nickelodeon</a>'s <i><a href="/wiki/The_SpongeBob_SquarePants_Movie">The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie</a></i> (which earned $9,559,752).<sup><a href="#cite_note-14">[14]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-15">[15]</a></sup> It grossed $35,142,554 during its opening weekend, on 4,300 screens at 3,243 theaters, averaging $11,648 per venue, again ahead of <i>The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie</i>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-OW-16">[16]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-17">[17]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-BBC-18">[18]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-19">[19]</a></sup> The film had the best opening weekend for a Disney film released in November until it was surpassed by <i><a href="/wiki/Chicken_Little_(2005_film)">Chicken Little</a></i> in 2005. It held on to the No. 1 spot for three weekends. In Japan, <i>National Treasure</i> bested the double-billing <i><a href="/wiki/MegaMan_NT_Warrior">MegaMan NT Warrior: Program of Light and Dark</a></i> and <i><a href="/wiki/Duel_Masters">Duel Masters: Curse of the Deathphoenix</a></i>, grossing $11,666,763 in its first week. The film closed on June 2, 2005, with a domestic gross of $173,008,894 and earning $174,503,424 internationally. Worldwide, <i>National Treasure</i> grossed over $347,512,318, against a budget of $100 million.<sup><a href="#cite_note-BOM-1">[1]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Critical reception[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=10">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>On <a href="/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes">Rotten Tomatoes</a>, the film has an approval rating of 46% based on 179 reviews, and an average rating of 5.30/10. The site's consensus reads, "<i>National Treasure</i> is no treasure, but it's a fun ride for those who can forgive its highly improbable plot."<sup><a href="#cite_note-20">[20]</a></sup> On <a href="/wiki/Metacritic">Metacritic</a>, the film has a score of 39 out of 100, based on 35 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".<sup><a href="#cite_note-21">[21]</a></sup> Audiences polled by <a href="/wiki/CinemaScore">CinemaScore</a> gave the film an average grade of "A−" on an A+ to F scale.<sup><a href="#cite_note-22">[22]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-23">[23]</a></sup>
</p><p><a href="/wiki/Roger_Ebert">Roger Ebert</a> gave the film 2/4 stars, calling it "so silly that the <a href="/wiki/Monty_Python">Monty Python</a> version could use the same screenplay, line for line."<sup><a href="#cite_note-24">[24]</a></sup> Academic <a href="/wiki/David_Bordwell">David Bordwell</a> has expressed a liking for the film, placing it in the tradition of 1950s <a href="/wiki/Walt_Disney_Pictures">Disney</a> children's adventure movies,<sup><a href="#cite_note-25">[25]</a></sup> and using it as the basis for an essay on scene transitions in <a href="/wiki/Classical_Hollywood_cinema">classical Hollywood cinema</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-26">[26]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Awards[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=11">edit</a>]</h3>
<table>
<tbody><tr>
<th>Year
</th>
<th>Award
</th>
<th>Category
</th>
<th>Notes
</th>
<th>Result
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>BMI Film &amp; TV Awards
</td>
<td>BMI Film Music Award
</td>
<td>BMI Film Music Award for Trevor Rabin
</td>
<td>Won
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy &amp; Horror Films, USA
</td>
<td>Saturn Award for Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film
</td>
<td>
</td>
<td>Nominated
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>Saturn Award for Best Supporting Actress
</td>
<td><a href="/wiki/Diane_Kruger">Diane Kruger</a>
</td>
<td>Nominated
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>Teen Choice Awards
</td>
<td>Movie: Action/Adventure
</td>
<td>
</td>
<td>Nominated
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>Visual Effects Society Awards
</td>
<td>Outstanding Models and Miniatures in a Motion Picture
</td>
<td>Matthew Gratzner, Forest Fischer, Scott Beverly,<br />and Leigh-Alexandra Jacob, for the treasure room
</td>
<td>Nominated
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>World Stunt Awards
</td>
<td>Taurus Award for Best Overall Stunt by a Stunt Woman
</td>
<td>Lisa Hoyle
</td>
<td>Nominated
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>Young Artist Awards
</td>
<td>Best Family Feature Film: Drama
</td>
<td>
</td>
<td>Nominated
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>2005
</td>
<td>Young Artist Awards
</td>
<td>Best Performance in a Feature Film, Supporting Young Actor
</td>
<td><a href="/wiki/Hunter_Gomez">Hunter Gomez</a>
</td>
<td>Nominated
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2>Home media[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=12">edit</a>]</h2>
<p><i>National Treasure</i> was released on Disney DVD in May 2005. In keeping with the movie's theme, the DVD contains a "Bonus Treasure Hunt": viewers who watch the Special Features on the disc are rewarded with puzzles and codes that unlock more features.
</p>
<h3>Collector's Edition DVD[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=13">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>To help promote <i>Book of Secrets</i>, a special collector's edition, two-disc DVD set of the movie was released on December 18, 2007. The set features a bonus disc containing additional deleted scenes and documentaries.<sup><a href="#cite_note-27">[27]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Blu-ray[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=14">edit</a>]</h3>
<p><a href="/wiki/Walt_Disney_Studios_Home_Entertainment">Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment</a> released <a href="/wiki/Blu-ray">Blu-ray</a> versions of <i>National Treasure</i> and its sequel, <i>National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets</i>, on May 20, 2008.<sup><a href="#cite_note-28">[28]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Sequels[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=15">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>Although the DVD commentary stated that there were no plans for a sequel, the film's box office gross of an unexpected $347.5 million worldwide warranted a second film, which was given the green light in 2005. <i><a href="/wiki/National_Treasure:_Book_of_Secrets">National Treasure: Book of Secrets</a></i> was released on December 21, 2007.
</p><p>In 2008, director Jon Turteltaub said that the filmmaking team would take its time on another <i>National Treasure</i> sequel.<sup><a href="#cite_note-29">[29]</a></sup> In October 2013, Turteltaub confirmed that he, the studio, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and the actors all wanted to do a third film, saying: "We want to do the movie, Disney wants to do the movie. We're just having the damnedest time writing it. I'll bet that within two years, we'll be shooting that movie. I'd say we're about halfway there."<sup><a href="#cite_note-30">[30]</a></sup> In May 2016, Cage confirmed the film was still in the writing process,<sup><a href="#cite_note-31">[31]</a></sup> and in July 2018, Turtletaub reiterated that a script for a possible third film was "close", but Disney still was not completely sold on it.<sup><a href="#cite_note-32">[32]</a></sup> In January 2020, it was announced that Chris Bremner, the writer of <i><a href="/wiki/Bad_Boys_for_Life">Bad Boys for Life</a></i>, would write a new script.<sup><a href="#cite_note-33">[33]</a></sup>
</p><p>In May 2020, <a href="/wiki/Jerry_Bruckheimer">Jerry Bruckheimer</a> confirmed that, not only was there a third film in development with the original cast returning, but also that a <a href="/wiki/Disney%2B">Disney+</a> series was in the works with the same premise as the original, but focusing on a much younger cast.<sup><a href="#cite_note-34">[34]</a></sup>
</p><p>During an April 2022 AMA (Ask Me Anything) thread on Reddit, Cage said of the possibility of future installments: "No, the priority was to turn it into a TV show so I would say probably not."<sup><a href="#cite_note-35">[35]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>See also[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=16">edit</a>]</h2>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Arnold_Cipher">Arnold Cipher</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Beale_ciphers">Beale ciphers</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Nicholas_Dietrich,_Baron_de_Ottendorf">Nicholas Dietrich, Baron de Ottendorf</a></li></ul>
<h2>References[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=17">edit</a>]</h2>
<div><ol>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-BOM_1-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-BOM_1-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-BOM_1-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <cite><a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nationaltreasure.htm">"Box office statistics for <i>National Treasure</i> (2004)"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Box_Office_Mojo">Box Office Mojo</a></i>. Retrieved April 10, 2007.</cite>.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-2">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.tonganoxiemirror.com/news/2004/nov/18/national_treasure_cashes/">"'National Treasure' cashes in on wacky heist"</a>.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-3">^</a></b> <cite>Vitale, Simona. <a href="https://www.mondofox.it/2018/04/13/il-mistero-dei-templari-national-treasure-trama-e-cast-del-primo-film-con-nicolas-cage/">"Il mistero dei Templari - National Treasure, trama e cast del primo film con Nicolas Cage"</a>. <i>Mondo Fox</i> (in Italian). <a href="/wiki/Fox_Networks_Group">Fox Networks Group</a>. Retrieved May 12, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-SeanBean_4-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-SeanBean_4-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Feiwell, Jill; Harris, Dana (October 13, 2003). <a href="https://variety.com/2003/scene/people-news/sean-bean-2-1117893976/">"Sean Bean"</a>. <a href="/wiki/Variety_(magazine)">Variety</a>. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161006053913/http://variety.com/2003/scene/people-news/sean-bean-2-1117893976/">Archived</a> from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Variety1_5-0">^</a></b> <cite>Cox, Dan; Carver, Benedict (February 22, 1999). <a href="https://variety.com/1999/film/news/treasure-found-1117491542/">"'Treasure' found"</a>. <a href="/wiki/Variety_(magazine)">Variety</a>. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161006143909/http://variety.com/1999/film/news/treasure-found-1117491542/">Archived</a> from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Variety2_6-0">^</a></b> <cite>Fleming, Michael (July 31, 2001). <a href="https://variety.com/2001/film/news/helmer-digs-for-treasure-1117850589/">"Helmer digs for 'Treasure'"</a>. <a href="/wiki/Variety_(magazine)">Variety</a>. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161006051926/http://variety.com/2001/film/news/helmer-digs-for-treasure-1117850589/">Archived</a> from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-NicolasCage_7-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-NicolasCage_7-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Fleming, Michael (May 27, 2003). <a href="https://variety.com/2003/film/markets-festivals/cage-unearths-treasure-1117886974/">"Cage unearths 'Treasure'"</a>. <a href="/wiki/Variety_(magazine)">Variety</a>. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161006050857/http://variety.com/2003/film/markets-festivals/cage-unearths-treasure-1117886974/">Archived</a> from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Draft2003_8-0">^</a></b> <cite>The Wibberley's (April 9, 2003). <a href="http://www.patriotresource.com/nationaltreasure/insights/030409.pdf">"National Treasure Draft"</a> (PDF). Patriot Resource. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150924065125/http://www.patriotresource.com/nationaltreasure/insights/030409.pdf">Archived</a> (PDF) from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved October 5, 2016.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-imdblocations_9-0">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/locations">"Locations for National Treasure"</a>. <i>Internet Movie Database</i>. Retrieved March 2, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-10">^</a></b> <cite>Unterberger, Richie. <a href="https://www.allmusic.com/album/national-treasure-original-score-mw0000633171">"Trevor Rabin, National Treasure (Original Score)"</a>. <a href="/wiki/AllMusic.com">AllMusic.com</a>. Retrieved December 10, 2015.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-11">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a22025447/declaration-of-independence-science/">"The Declaration of Independence Has Had a Fairly Rough Time, but Preservationists Have Saved It"</a>. July 3, 2020.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-12">^</a></b> <cite>Ruane, Michael E. (October 21, 2016). <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/was-the-declaration-of-independence-defaced-experts-say-yes/2016/10/21/5bb6efaa-96d9-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html">"Was the Declaration of Independence 'defaced'? Experts say yes"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Washington_Post">Washington Post</a></i>.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-13">^</a></b> <cite>National Treasure Hunt. <a href="https://nthuntpodcast.com/">"National Treasure Hunt | Podcast, Book, Tour &amp; More"</a>. <i>National Treasure Hunt</i>. Retrieved April 21, 2022.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-14">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2004-11-19&amp;p=.htm">"Daily Box Office for Friday, November 19, 2004"</a>. <i>Box Office Mojo</i>. 2004.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-15">^</a></b> <cite>Duong, Senh (November 20, 2004). <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spongebob_squarepants_movie/news/1644425/box_office__friday_estimates_-_1_treasure_11m_2_square_pants_94m/">"BOX OFFICE: Friday Estimates - 1. ?Treasure? $11M, 2. ?Square pants? $9.4M"</a>. Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved August 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-OW_16-0">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&amp;wknd=47&amp;p=.htm">"November 19-21, 2004 Weekend"</a>. <i>Box Office Mojo</i>. Retrieved August 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-17">^</a></b> <cite>Gray, Brandon (November 22, 2004). <a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1573&amp;p=.htm">"'National Treasure,' 'SpongeBob' Clean Up"</a>. <i>Box Office Mojo</i>. Retrieved August 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-BBC_18-0">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4031439.stm">"SpongeBob squeezed at box office"</a>. BBC. November 22, 2004. Retrieved August 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-19">^</a></b> <cite>Peterson, Todd (November 22, 2004). <a href="http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,785444,00.html">"Treasure Makes Bank at the Box Office"</a>. <i>People</i>. Retrieved August 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-20">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://rottentomatoes.com/m/national_treasure/">"National Treasure"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes">Rotten Tomatoes</a></i>. Retrieved January 21, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-21">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.metacritic.com/movie/national-treasure">"National Treasure"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Metacritic">Metacritic</a></i>. Retrieved May 23, 2015.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-22">^</a></b> <cite>Mark Hofmeyer (November 19, 2019). <a href="https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/5-reasons-national-treasure-is-still-a-fan-favorite/">"5 Reasons National Treasure Is Still a Fan Favorite"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes">Rotten Tomatoes</a></i>.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-23">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20181220122629/https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/">"Cinemascore"</a>. Archived from <a href="https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/">the original</a> on December 20, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-24">^</a></b> <cite>Ebert, Roger. <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/national-treasure-2004">"National Treasure"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Chicago_Sun-Times">Chicago Sun-Times</a></i>.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-25">^</a></b> <cite>Bordwell, David (January 5, 2008). <a href="http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1781">"Your trash, my Treasure"</a>. Retrieved January 30, 2010.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-26">^</a></b> <cite>Bordwell, David (January 2008). <a href="http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/hook.php">"The Hook: Scene Transitions in Classical Cinema"</a>. Retrieved January 30, 2010.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-27">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://www.dvdmg.com/nationaltreasurece.shtml">"Collectors Edition"</a>. dvdmg.com. Retrieved March 8, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-28">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/pressrelease_disney2008bluray.html">"Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment Announces the Disney Blu-Ray Title Wave Coming 2008"</a>. High-Def Digest. August 17, 2007. Retrieved September 27, 2007.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-29">^</a></b> <cite>Kirkland, Bruce (May 30, 2008). <a href="https://archive.today/20120717143342/http://jam.canoe.ca/Video/DVD_Column/2008/05/30/5721241-sun.html">"'National Treasure 3' in works"</a>. <i>Jam!</i>. <a href="/wiki/Canada">CA</a>: Canoe. Archived from <a href="http://jam.canoe.ca/Video/DVD_Column/2008/05/30/5721241-sun.html">the original</a> on July 17, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-30">^</a></b> <cite>Franklin, Garth (October 22, 2013). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140331140233/http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/29299/a-national-treasure-3-is-on-the-way">"A "National Treasure 3" Is On The Way?"</a>. <i>Dark Horizons</i>. Archived from <a href="http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/29299/a-national-treasure-3-is-on-the-way">the original</a> on March 31, 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-31">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://collider.com/national-treasure-3-nicolas-cage/">"'National Treasure 3': Nic Cage Says the Writers Are Still Fact-Checking"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Collider_(website)">Collider</a></i>. May 25, 2016.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-32">^</a></b> <cite>Alyssa Fikse (July 30, 2018). <a href="https://uproxx.com/movies/national-treasure-3-delay-explained/">"The Director Of 'National Treasure' Explains Why We Haven't Gotten A Third Movie Yet"</a>. <a href="/wiki/Uproxx">Uproxx</a>. Retrieved July 30, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-33">^</a></b> <cite>Kit, Borys (January 17, 2020). <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/bad-boys-4-works-1269915">"'Bad Boys 4' in the Works (Exclusive)"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/The_Hollywood_Reporter">The Hollywood Reporter</a></i>. Retrieved January 17, 2020.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-34">^</a></b> <cite>Mancuso, Vinnie (May 7, 2020). <a href="https://collider.com/national-treasure-disney-plus-tv-series/">"Exclusive: 'National Treasure' Disney+ Series In Development"</a>. <i>Collider</i>. Retrieved May 7, 2020.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-35">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/tzxev3/hello_im_nicolas_cage_and_welcome_to_ask_me/i42fygo/?context=3">"r/movies Nicolas Cage's AMA"</a>. <i>Reddit</i>. April 10, 2022.</cite>
</li>
</ol></div>
<h2>External links[<a href="/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&amp;action=edit&amp;section=18">edit</a>]</h2>
<ul><li><a href="http://movies.disney.com/national-treasure">Official website</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/"><i>National Treasure</i></a> at <a href="/wiki/IMDb">IMDb</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.allmovie.com/movie/v289256"><i>National Treasure</i></a> at <a href="/wiki/AllMovie">AllMovie</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nationaltreasure.htm"><i>National Treasure</i></a> at <a href="/wiki/Box_Office_Mojo">Box Office Mojo</a></li></ul>
</div>||||I|||| Jump to content
 Toggle sidebar
 Search
 * Create account
 Personal tools
 * Create account
 * Log in

 Pages for logged out editors learn more

 * Talk
 * Contributions
 Navigation
 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * About Wikipedia
 * Contact us
 * Donate
 Contribute
 * Help
 * Learn to edit
 * Community portal
 * Recent changes
 * Upload file
 Tools
 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Permanent link
 * Page information
 * Cite this page
 * Wikidata item
 Print/export
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version
 In other projects
 * Wikimedia Commons
 * Wikiquote
 Languages
 On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title. Go to top.

 Contents

 move to sidebar hide
 * (Top)
 * 1 Plot
 * 2 Cast
 * 3 Production
 + 3.1 Development
 + 3.2 Filming locations
 * 4 Soundtrack
 * 5 Portrayal of Declaration of Independence
 * 6 Reception
 + 6.1 Box office
 + 6.2 Critical reception
 + 6.3 Awards
 * 7 Home media
 + 7.1 Collector's Edition DVD
 + 7.2 Blu-ray
 * 8 Sequels
 * 9 See also
 * 10 References
 * 11 External links
 Toggle the table of contents

 National Treasure (film)

 39 languages
 * العربية
 * Արեւմտահայերէն
 * Български
 * Català
 * Čeština
 * Dansk
 * Deutsch
 * Español
 * فارسی
 * Français
 * Galego
 * 한국어
 * Հայերեն
 * हिन्दी
 * Bahasa Indonesia
 * Italiano
 * עברית
 * Latviešu
 * Lietuvių
 * Magyar
 * മലയാളം
 * مصرى
 * Bahasa Melayu
 * Nederlands
 * 日本語
 * Norsk bokmål
 * Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
 * Polski
 * Português
 * Română
 * Русский
 * Simple English
 * Slovenščina
 * Suomi
 * Svenska
 * Türkçe
 * Українська
 * 粵語
 * 中文
 Edit links
 * Article
 * Talk
 English
 * Read
 * Edit
 * View history
 More
 * Read
 * Edit
 * View history
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 This article is about the 2004 film. For the franchise, see National Treasure (franchise).

 National Treasure 
 Theatrical release poster
 Directed by Jon Turteltaub 
 * Jim Kouf 
 Screenplay by * Cormac Wibberley 
 * Marianne Wibberley 
 * Jim Kouf 
 Story by * Oren Aviv 
 * Charles Segars 
 Produced by * Jerry Bruckheimer 
 * Jon Turteltaub 
 * Nicolas Cage 
 * Harvey Keitel 
 * Jon Voight 
 Starring * Diane Kruger 
 * Sean Bean 
 * Justin Bartha 
 * Christopher Plummer 
 Cinematography Caleb Deschanel 
 Edited by William Goldenberg 
 Music by Trevor Rabin 
 * Walt Disney Pictures 
 Production * Jerry Bruckheimer Films 
 companies * Junction Entertainment 
 * Saturn Films 
 Distributed by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution
 Release date * November 19, 2004 
 Running time 131 minutes 
 Country United States 
 Language English 
 Budget $100 million[1] 
 Box office $347.5 million[1] 
 

 National Treasure is a 2004 American action-adventure heist film[2] released by Walt Disney Pictures. It was written by Jim Kouf and the Wibberleys, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and directed by Jon Turteltaub. It is the first film in the National Treasure franchise and stars Nicolas Cage in the lead role, Harvey Keitel, Jon Voight, Diane Kruger, Sean Bean, Justin Bartha and Christopher Plummer. In the film, Benjamin Franklin Gates, a historian, along with friend Riley Poole and archivist Abigail Chase, search for a massive lost Freemason treasure, to which a map is hidden on the back of the Declaration of Independence.

 National Treasure was released worldwide on November 19, 2004. The film grossed $347 million worldwide and received mixed reviews from critics, who praised the action scenes and performances but criticized the premise and screenplay. A sequel, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, was released in 2007.

 At the 2022 D23 Expo, a sequel TV series, National Treasure: Edge of History, was announced. It was released on the Disney+ streaming service on December 14, 2022.

 Plot [ edit ]

 Benjamin Franklin Gates is an American historian, cryptographer, and treasure hunter. When Ben was young, his grandfather John told him that, in 1832, Charles Carroll passed on a secret to their ancestor of a fabled treasure hidden in America by the Knights Templar, Founding Fathers, and Freemasons. Carroll's secret was a clue leading to the treasure: the phrase "the secret lies with Charlotte". While Ben is convinced by the story, his skeptical father, Patrick, dismisses it as nonsense.

 Thirty years later, Ben and his friend, computer expert Riley Poole, head an expedition financed by wealthy Ian Howe to find the Charlotte, revealed to be a ship lost in the Arctic. Within the ship, they find a meerschaum pipe, whose engravings reveal the next clue is on the Declaration of Independence. When Ian reveals himself to be a crime boss and suggests stealing the Declaration, a fight ensues, and the group splits. Ben and Riley report Ian's plan to the FBI and Abigail Chase of the National Archives, but no one believes them. Ben decides to protect the Declaration by removing it from the Archives' preservation room during a gala event. Obtaining Abigail's fingerprints, he successfully obtains the Declaration, only to be spotted by Ian's group just as they break in to steal it. Ben tries to leave via the gift shop but has to pay for the Declaration when the cashier mistakes it for a souvenir copy. Suspecting something amiss, Abigail confronts Ben and takes back the document. Ian promptly kidnaps her, but Ben and Riley rescue Abigail, tricking Ian by leaving behind a souvenir copy of the Declaration. FBI Agent Sadusky begins tracking Ben down.

 Going to Patrick's house, the trio studies the Declaration and discovers an Ottendorf cipher written in invisible ink. The message refers to Benjamin Franklin's Silence Dogood letters. Patrick formerly owned them, but donated them to the Franklin Institute. Paying a schoolboy to view the letters and decipher the code for them, Ben, Riley, and Abigail discover a message pointing to the bell tower of Independence Hall. Pursued by Ian, they find a brick containing a pair of spectacles with multiple colored lenses, which, when used to read the back of the Declaration, reveal a clue pointing to Trinity Church. Ian's associates chase the trio through Philadelphia until the FBI arrests Ben. Abigail and Riley lose the Declaration to Ian, but Abigail convinces Ian to help them rescue Ben in exchange for the next clue. Ian agrees, arranging a meeting at the USS Intrepid, where they help Ben evade the FBI.

 Ian returns the Declaration and asks for the next clue, but when Ben remains coy, Ian reveals he has taken Patrick hostage. They travel to the Trinity Church, where they find an underground passage that appears to lead to a dead end, lit by a lone lantern. Patrick claims it is a reference to the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, pointing Ian to the Old North Church in Boston. Ian traps Ben, Abigail, Riley, and Patrick in the chamber, heading for Boston, which was Patrick's intent as the clue was fictitious and he knew that Ian would betray them. Ben then finds a notch the meerschaum pipe fits into, opening a large chamber containing the treasure, with a staircase to the surface. Ben contacts Sadusky, who is actually a Freemason, and surrenders the Declaration and the treasure's location in exchange for letting Abigail go free, giving the Gates family and Riley credit for the discovery, and no prison sentence. On a tip from Ben, the FBI arrests Ian for kidnapping and other crimes.

 Later, Ben and Abigail have started a relationship, while Riley is somewhat upset that Ben turned down the 10% finder's fee for the treasure so the entire collection could go to museums. But the 1% he did accept has still netted them all significant wealth.

 Cast [ edit ]

 Nicolas Cage in 2011 (top) and Sean Bean in 2015
 * Nicolas Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates:[3]
 An American treasure hunter and cryptographer.
 + Hunter Gomez as young Benjamin Gates
 * Sean Bean as Ian Howe:
 An entrepreneur, crime boss and treasure hunter who is a former friend of Benjamin Gates.[4]
 * Diane Kruger as Dr. Abigail Chase:
 An archivist at the National Archives who aids Benjamin Gates in treasure hunting.
 * Justin Bartha as Riley Poole:
 A sardonic computer expert and friend of Benjamin Gates.
 * Jon Voight as Patrick Henry Gates:
 A former treasure hunter and the father of Benjamin Gates.
 * Harvey Keitel as Agent Peter Sadusky:
 An FBI Special Agent in charge of the theft of the Declaration of Independence.
 * Christopher Plummer as John Adams Gates:
 The father of Patrick Gates and the grandfather of Benjamin Gates.

 Jack Koenig portrays a young version of Founding Father Charles Carroll; David Dayan Fisher appears as Shaw, Stewart Finlay-McLennan as Powell, Oleg Taktarov as Viktor Shippen, and Stephen Pope as Phil McGregor (Ian's henchmen); Annie Parisse, Mark Pellegrino, Armando Riesco, and Erik King play agents Dawes, Ted Johnson, Hendricks, and Colfax, respectively. Jason Earles portrays Thomas Gates.

 Production [ edit ]

 Development [ edit ]

 By early 1999, it was revealed that Jon Turteltaub was developing National Treasure based upon an idea developed by Oren Aviv and Charles Segars in 1997, with a script by Jim Kouf.[5] By 2001, the project was relocated to Touchstone Pictures.[6]

 Film set for the underground chambers beneath Trinity Church

 In May 2003, Nicolas Cage was cast as the lead.[7] New drafts were written by nine scribers, including Cormac and Marianne Wibberley,[7] E. Max Frye, and Jon Turteltaub.[8] By October, Sean Bean was cast.[4]

 Filming locations [ edit ]

 National Treasure was filmed primarily in Washington, New York, Philadelphia and Utah. Most scenes were filmed on location, with the exceptions of the Independence Hall scene, which was filmed at the replica of Independence Hall at Knott's Berry Farm, and the Arctic scene, which was filmed in Utah.[9]

 Soundtrack [ edit ]

 National Treasure (Original Score)
 Film score by Trevor Rabin 
 Released November 16, 2004
 Recorded 2004 
 Genre Stage & screen 
 Length 38 : 45 
 Label Hollywood 
 Producer Trevor Rabin 
 
 Professional ratings
 Review scores
 Source Rating
 AllMusic [10] 
 

 All tracks are written by Trevor Rabin.

 No. Title Length
 1. "National Treasure Suite" 3:17 
 2. "Ben" 4:03 
 3. "Finding Charlotte" 1:04 
 4. "Library of Congress" 2:27 
 5. "Preparation Montage" 4:53 
 6. "Arrival at National Archives" 1:54 
 7. "The Chase" 4:22 
 8. "Declaration of Independence" 1:43 
 9. "Foot Chase" 3:34 
 10. "Spectacle Discovery" 3:18 
 11. "Interrogation" 4:30 
 12. "Treasure" 3:39 
 Total length: 38:45 
 

 Portrayal of Declaration of Independence [ edit ]

 The film's suggestion that the original Declaration of Independence still has clearly visible ink is inaccurate. The document's ink dried over time due to exposure to damaging lighting, with little ink still existing by 1876.[11][12] But viewers are often surprised to learn that many plot points in National Treasure and its sequel are inspired by true, often little-known, events in history. Since 2020, an independent podcast, the National Treasure Hunt, has conducted deep dives into many of these historical events.[13]

 Reception [ edit ]

 Box office [ edit ]

 National Treasure earned $11 million on its opening day in the United States, ahead of Paramount & Nickelodeon's The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (which earned $9,559,752).[14][15] It grossed $35,142,554 during its opening weekend, on 4,300 screens at 3,243 theaters, averaging $11,648 per venue, again ahead of The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie.[16][17][18][19] The film had the best opening weekend for a Disney film released in November until it was surpassed by Chicken Little in 2005. It held on to the No. 1 spot for three weekends. In Japan, National Treasure bested the double-billing MegaMan NT Warrior: Program of Light and Dark and Duel Masters: Curse of the Deathphoenix, grossing $11,666,763 in its first week. The film closed on June 2, 2005, with a domestic gross of $173,008,894 and earning $174,503,424 internationally. Worldwide, National Treasure grossed over $347,512,318, against a budget of $100 million.[1]

 Critical reception [ edit ]

 On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 46% based on 179 reviews, and an average rating of 5.30/10. The site's consensus reads, "National Treasure is no treasure, but it's a fun ride for those who can forgive its highly improbable plot."[20] On Metacritic, the film has a score of 39 out of 100, based on 35 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[21] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A−" on an A+ to F scale.[22][23]

 Roger Ebert gave the film 2/4 stars, calling it "so silly that the Monty Python version could use the same screenplay, line for line."[24] Academic David Bordwell has expressed a liking for the film, placing it in the tradition of 1950s Disney children's adventure movies,[25] and using it as the basis for an essay on scene transitions in classical Hollywood cinema.[26]

 Awards [ edit ]

 Year Award Category Notes Result 
 2005 BMI Film & TV Awards BMI Film Music Award BMI Film Music Award for Trevor Rabin Won 
 2005 Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA Saturn Award for Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film Nominated
 2005 Saturn Award for Best Supporting Actress Diane Kruger Nominated 
 2005 Teen Choice Awards Movie: Action/Adventure  Nominated
 2005 Visual Effects Society Awards Outstanding Models and Miniatures in a Motion Picture Matthew Gratzner, Forest Fischer, Scott Beverly, Nominated
   and Leigh-Alexandra Jacob, for the treasure room 
 2005 World Stunt Awards Taurus Award for Best Overall Stunt by a Stunt Woman Lisa Hoyle Nominated
 2005 Young Artist Awards Best Family Feature Film: Drama  Nominated
 2005 Young Artist Awards Best Performance in a Feature Film, Supporting Young Actor Hunter Gomez Nominated
 

 Home media [ edit ]

 National Treasure was released on Disney DVD in May 2005. In keeping with the movie's theme, the DVD contains a "Bonus Treasure Hunt": viewers who watch the Special Features on the disc are rewarded with puzzles and codes that unlock more features.

 Collector's Edition DVD [ edit ]

 To help promote Book of Secrets, a special collector's edition, two-disc DVD set of the movie was released on December 18, 2007. The set features a bonus disc containing additional deleted scenes and documentaries.[27]

 Blu-ray [ edit ]

 Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment released Blu-ray versions of National Treasure and its sequel, National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets, on May 20, 2008.[28]

 Sequels [ edit ]

 Main article: National Treasure (franchise)

 Although the DVD commentary stated that there were no plans for a sequel, the film's box office gross of an unexpected $347.5 million worldwide warranted a second film, which was given the green light in 2005. National Treasure: Book of Secrets was released on December 21, 2007.

 In 2008, director Jon Turteltaub said that the filmmaking team would take its time on another National Treasure sequel.[29] In October 2013, Turteltaub confirmed that he, the studio, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and the actors all wanted to do a third film, saying: "We want to do the movie, Disney wants to do the movie. We're just having the damnedest time writing it. I'll bet that within two years, we'll be shooting that movie. I'd say we're about halfway there."[30] In May 2016, Cage confirmed the film was still in the writing process,[31] and in July 2018, Turtletaub reiterated that a script for a possible third film was "close", but Disney still was not completely sold on it.[32] In January 2020, it was announced that Chris Bremner, the writer of Bad Boys for Life, would write a new script.[33]

 In May 2020, Jerry Bruckheimer confirmed that, not only was there a third film in development with the original cast returning, but also that a Disney+ series was in the works with the same premise as the original, but focusing on a much younger cast.[34]

 During an April 2022 AMA (Ask Me Anything) thread on Reddit, Cage said of the possibility of future installments: "No, the priority was to turn it into a TV show so I would say probably not."[35]

 See also [ edit ]

 * Arnold Cipher
 * Beale ciphers
 * Nicholas Dietrich, Baron de Ottendorf

 References [ edit ]

 1. ^ a b c "Box office statistics for National Treasure (2004)". Box Office Mojo . Retrieved April 10, 2007 . .
 2. ^ "'National Treasure' cashes in on wacky heist".
 3. ^ Vitale, Simona. "Il mistero dei Templari - National Treasure, trama e cast del primo film con Nicolas Cage". Mondo Fox (in Italian). Fox Networks Group . Retrieved May 12, 2018 .
 4. ^ a b Feiwell, Jill; Harris, Dana (October 13, 2003). "Sean Bean". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016 . Retrieved October 5, 2016 .
 5. ^ Cox, Dan; Carver, Benedict (February 22, 1999). "'Treasure' found". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016 . Retrieved October 5, 2016 .
 6. ^ Fleming, Michael (July 31, 2001). "Helmer digs for 'Treasure'". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016 . Retrieved October 5, 2016 .
 7. ^ a b Fleming, Michael (May 27, 2003). "Cage unearths 'Treasure'". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016 . Retrieved October 5, 2016 .
 8. ^ The Wibberley's (April 9, 2003). "National Treasure Draft" (PDF) . Patriot Resource. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 24, 2015 . Retrieved October 5, 2016 .
 9. ^ "Locations for National Treasure". Internet Movie Database . Retrieved March 2, 2013 .
 10. ^ Unterberger, Richie. "Trevor Rabin, National Treasure (Original Score)". AllMusic.com . Retrieved December 10, 2015 .
 11. ^ "The Declaration of Independence Has Had a Fairly Rough Time, but Preservationists Have Saved It". July 3, 2020.
 12. ^ Ruane, Michael E. (October 21, 2016). "Was the Declaration of Independence 'defaced'? Experts say yes". Washington Post.
 13. ^ National Treasure Hunt. "National Treasure Hunt | Podcast, Book, Tour & More". National Treasure Hunt . Retrieved April 21, 2022 .
 14. ^ "Daily Box Office for Friday, November 19, 2004". Box Office Mojo. 2004.
 15. ^ Duong, Senh (November 20, 2004). "BOX OFFICE: Friday Estimates - 1. ?Treasure? $11M, 2. ?Square pants? $9.4M". Rotten Tomatoes . Retrieved August 18, 2013 .
 16. ^ "November 19-21, 2004 Weekend". Box Office Mojo . Retrieved August 18, 2013 .
 17. ^ Gray, Brandon (November 22, 2004). "'National Treasure,' 'SpongeBob' Clean Up". Box Office Mojo . Retrieved August 18, 2013 .
 18. ^ "SpongeBob squeezed at box office". BBC. November 22, 2004 . Retrieved August 18, 2013 .
 19. ^ Peterson, Todd (November 22, 2004). "Treasure Makes Bank at the Box Office". People . Retrieved August 18, 2013 .
 20. ^ "National Treasure". Rotten Tomatoes . Retrieved January 21, 2021 .
 21. ^ "National Treasure". Metacritic . Retrieved May 23, 2015 .
 22. ^ Mark Hofmeyer (November 19, 2019). "5 Reasons National Treasure Is Still a Fan Favorite". Rotten Tomatoes.
 23. ^ "Cinemascore". Archived from the original on December 20, 2018.
 24. ^ Ebert, Roger. "National Treasure". Chicago Sun-Times.
 25. ^ Bordwell, David (January 5, 2008). "Your trash, my Treasure" . Retrieved January 30, 2010 .
 26. ^ Bordwell, David (January 2008). "The Hook: Scene Transitions in Classical Cinema" . Retrieved January 30, 2010 .
 27. ^ "Collectors Edition". dvdmg.com . Retrieved March 8, 2018 .
 28. ^ "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment Announces the Disney Blu-Ray Title Wave Coming 2008". High-Def Digest. August 17, 2007 . Retrieved September 27, 2007 .
 29. ^ Kirkland, Bruce (May 30, 2008). "'National Treasure 3' in works". Jam!. CA: Canoe. Archived from the original on July 17, 2012.
 30. ^ Franklin, Garth (October 22, 2013). "A "National Treasure 3" Is On The Way?". Dark Horizons. Archived from the original on March 31, 2014 . Retrieved March 21, 2018 .
 31. ^ "'National Treasure 3': Nic Cage Says the Writers Are Still Fact-Checking". Collider. May 25, 2016.
 32. ^ Alyssa Fikse (July 30, 2018). "The Director Of 'National Treasure' Explains Why We Haven't Gotten A Third Movie Yet". Uproxx . Retrieved July 30, 2018 .
 33. ^ Kit, Borys (January 17, 2020). "'Bad Boys 4' in the Works (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved January 17, 2020 .
 34. ^ Mancuso, Vinnie (May 7, 2020). "Exclusive: 'National Treasure' Disney+ Series In Development". Collider . Retrieved May 7, 2020 .
 35. ^ "r/movies Nicolas Cage's AMA". Reddit. April 10, 2022.

 External links [ edit ]

 Wikimedia Commons has media related to National Treasure (film).
 Wikiquote has quotations related to National Treasure (film).
 * Official website
 * National Treasure at IMDb
 * National Treasure at AllMovie
 * National Treasure at Box Office Mojo
 * v 
 * t 
 * e 
 National Treasure
 * National Treasure
 Films * Book of Secrets 
 + soundtrack 
 Television * Edge of History 
 
 * v 
 * t 
 * e 
 Films directed by Jon Turteltaub 
 * Think Big (1989) 
 * Trabbi Goes to Hollywood (1991) 
 * 3 Ninjas (1992) 
 * Cool Runnings (1993) 
 * While You Were Sleeping (1995) 
 * Phenomenon (1996) 
 * Instinct (1999) 
 * The Kid (2000) 
 * National Treasure (2004) 
 * National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)
 * The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) 
 * Last Vegas (2013) 
 * The Meg (2018) 
 
 * v 
 * t 
 * e 
 Films produced by Jerry Bruckheimer 
 * Farewell, My Lovely (1975) 
 * March or Die (1977) 
 * American Gigolo (1980) 
 * Defiance (1980) 
 * Thief (1981) 
 * Young Doctors in Love (1982) 
 * Flashdance (1983) 
 * Thief of Hearts (1984) 
 * Beverly Hills Cop (1984) 
 * Top Gun (1986) 
 * Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) 
 * Days of Thunder (1990) 
 * Dangerous Minds (1995) 
 * Crimson Tide (1995) 
 * Bad Boys (1995) 
 * The Rock (1996) 
 * Con Air (1997) 
 * Armageddon (1998) 
 * Enemy of the State (1998) 
 * Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) 
 * Coyote Ugly (2000) 
 * Remember the Titans (2000) 
 * Pearl Harbor (2001) 
 * Black Hawk Down (2001) 
 * Bad Company (2002) 
 * Kangaroo Jack (2003) 
 * Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
 * Bad Boys II (2003) 
 * Veronica Guerin (2003) 
 * King Arthur (2004) 
 * National Treasure (2004) 
 * Glory Road (2006) 
 * Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) 
 * Déjà Vu (2006) 
 * Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) 
 * National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) 
 * Confessions of a Shopaholic (2009) 
 * G-Force (2009) 
 * Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) 
 * The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) 
 * Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) 
 * The Lone Ranger (2013) 
 * Deliver Us from Evil (2014) 
 * Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) 
 * 12 Strong (2018) 
 * Gemini Man (2019) 
 * Bad Boys for Life (2020) 
 * Top Gun: Maverick (2022) 
 * Secret Headquarters (2022) 
 * Young Woman and the Sea (TBA) 
 * Beverly Hills Cop: Axel Foley (TBA) 
 
 Authority control
 * VIAF 
 General + 1 
 * WorldCat (via VIAF)
 Other * MusicBrainz 
 + release group 
 
 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Treasure_(film)&oldid=1133724334"
 Categories:
 * 2004 films
 * 2000s adventure films
 * 2000s heist films
 * American adventure films
 * American heist films
 * Walt Disney Pictures films
 * 2000s English-language films
 * Films about Freemasonry
 * Films directed by Jon Turteltaub
 * Films produced by Jerry Bruckheimer
 * Films scored by Trevor Rabin
 * Films set in 1974
 * Films set in 2004
 * Films set in Massachusetts
 * Films set in New York City
 * Films set in New Jersey
 * Films set in Pennsylvania
 * Films set in Philadelphia
 * Films set in Washington, D.C.
 * Films shot in New York City
 * Hollywood Records soundtracks
 * Museums in popular culture
 * Treasure hunt films
 * Cryptography in fiction
 * American Revolutionary War films
 * United States Declaration of Independence
 * Cultural depictions of George Washington
 * Cultural depictions of Thomas Jefferson
 * Cultural depictions of Benjamin Franklin
 * Saturn Films films
 * Secret histories
 * National Treasure (film series)
 * 2000s American films
 Hidden categories:
 * CS1 Italian-language sources (it)
 * Articles with short description
 * Short description is different from Wikidata
 * Use mdy dates from June 2017
 * Template film date with 1 release date
 * Articles with hAudio microformats
 * Album infoboxes lacking a cover
 * Album articles lacking alt text for covers
 * Commons category link from Wikidata
 * Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia
 * IMDb ID same as Wikidata
 * Articles with VIAF identifiers
 * Articles with WorldCat-VIAF identifiers
 * Articles with MusicBrainz release group identifiers
 * This page was last edited on 15 January 2023, at 06:08 (UTC) .
 * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
 * Privacy policy
 * About Wikipedia
 * Disclaimers
 * Contact Wikipedia
 * Mobile view
 * Developers
 * Statistics
 * Cookie statement
 * 
 * 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
	 
   National Treasure      Theatrical release poster    Directed by  Jon Turteltaub    Screenplay by  
  Jim Kouf 
 Cormac Wibberley 
 Marianne Wibberley  
    Story by  
 Jim Kouf
Oren Aviv
 Charles Segars  
    Produced by  
  Jerry Bruckheimer 
Jon Turteltaub 
    Starring  
  Nicolas Cage 
 Harvey Keitel 
 Jon Voight 
 Diane Kruger 
 Sean Bean 
 Justin Bartha 
 Christopher Plummer  
    Cinematography  Caleb Deschanel    Edited by  William Goldenberg    Music by  Trevor Rabin     Productioncompanies   
  Walt Disney Pictures 
 Jerry Bruckheimer Films 
Junction Entertainment
 Saturn Films  
    Distributed by  Buena Vista Pictures Distribution     Release date   
 November 19, 2004 
     Running time  131 minutes   Country United States   Language English   Budget $100 million [1]     Box office $347.5 million [1]     
  National Treasure  is a 2004 American action-adventure heist film  [2]  released by Walt Disney Pictures. It was written by Jim Kouf and the Wibberleys, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and directed by Jon Turteltaub. It is the first film in the  National Treasure franchise and stars Nicolas Cage in the lead role, Harvey Keitel, Jon Voight, Diane Kruger, Sean Bean, Justin Bartha and Christopher Plummer. In the film, Benjamin Franklin Gates, a historian, along with friend Riley Poole and archivist Abigail Chase, search for a massive lost Freemason treasure, to which a map is hidden on the back of the Declaration of Independence.
  National Treasure was released worldwide on November 19, 2004. The film grossed $347 million worldwide and received mixed reviews from critics, who praised the action scenes and performances but criticized the premise and screenplay. A sequel,  National Treasure: Book of Secrets , was released in 2007.
 At the 2022 D23 Expo, a sequel TV series,  National Treasure: Edge of History , was announced. It was released on the Disney+ streaming service on December 14, 2022.
Plot[edit]
Benjamin Franklin Gates is an American historian, cryptographer, and treasure hunter. When Ben was young, his grandfather John told him that, in 1832, Charles Carroll passed on a secret to their ancestor of a fabled treasure hidden in America by the Knights Templar, Founding Fathers, and Freemasons. Carroll's secret was a clue leading to the treasure: the phrase "the secret lies with Charlotte". While Ben is convinced by the story, his skeptical father, Patrick, dismisses it as nonsense.
 Thirty years later, Ben and his friend, computer expert Riley Poole, head an expedition financed by wealthy Ian Howe to find the Charlotte, revealed to be a ship lost in the Arctic. Within the ship, they find a meerschaum pipe, whose engravings reveal the next clue is on the Declaration of Independence. When Ian reveals himself to be a crime boss and suggests stealing the Declaration, a fight ensues, and the group splits. Ben and Riley report Ian's plan to the FBI and Abigail Chase of the National Archives, but no one believes them. Ben decides to protect the Declaration by removing it from the Archives' preservation room during a gala event. Obtaining Abigail's fingerprints, he successfully obtains the Declaration, only to be spotted by Ian's group just as they break in to steal it. Ben tries to leave via the gift shop but has to pay for the Declaration when the cashier mistakes it for a souvenir copy. Suspecting something amiss, Abigail confronts Ben and takes back the document. Ian promptly kidnaps her, but Ben and Riley rescue Abigail, tricking Ian by leaving behind a souvenir copy of the Declaration. FBI Agent Sadusky begins tracking Ben down.
 Going to Patrick's house, the trio studies the Declaration and discovers an Ottendorf cipher written in invisible ink. The message refers to Benjamin Franklin's Silence Dogood letters. Patrick formerly owned them, but donated them to the Franklin Institute. Paying a schoolboy to view the letters and decipher the code for them, Ben, Riley, and Abigail discover a message pointing to the bell tower of Independence Hall. Pursued by Ian, they find a brick containing a pair of spectacles with multiple colored lenses, which, when used to read the back of the Declaration, reveal a clue pointing to Trinity Church. Ian's associates chase the trio through Philadelphia until the FBI arrests Ben. Abigail and Riley lose the Declaration to Ian, but Abigail convinces Ian to help them rescue Ben in exchange for the next clue. Ian agrees, arranging a meeting at the USS Intrepid , where they help Ben evade the FBI.
 Ian returns the Declaration and asks for the next clue, but when Ben remains coy, Ian reveals he has taken Patrick hostage. They travel to the Trinity Church, where they find an underground passage that appears to lead to a dead end, lit by a lone lantern. Patrick claims it is a reference to the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, pointing Ian to the Old North Church in Boston. Ian traps Ben, Abigail, Riley, and Patrick in the chamber, heading for Boston, which was Patrick's intent as the clue was fictitious and he knew that Ian would betray them. Ben then finds a notch the meerschaum pipe fits into, opening a large chamber containing the treasure, with a staircase to the surface. Ben contacts Sadusky, who is actually a Freemason, and surrenders the Declaration and the treasure's location in exchange for letting Abigail go free, giving the Gates family and Riley credit for the discovery, and no prison sentence. On a tip from Ben, the FBI arrests Ian for kidnapping and other crimes.
 Later, Ben and Abigail have started a relationship, while Riley is somewhat upset that Ben turned down the 10% finder's fee for the treasure so the entire collection could go to museums. But the 1% he did accept has still netted them all significant wealth.
Cast[edit]
             
  Nicolas Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates: [3]  An American treasure hunter and cryptographer.
  Hunter Gomez as young Benjamin Gates  
 Sean Bean as Ian Howe:An entrepreneur, crime boss and treasure hunter who is a former friend of Benjamin Gates. [4]  
 Diane Kruger as Dr. Abigail Chase:An archivist at the National Archives who aids Benjamin Gates in treasure hunting.
 Justin Bartha as Riley Poole:A sardonic computer expert and friend of Benjamin Gates.
 Jon Voight as Patrick Henry Gates:A former treasure hunter and the father of Benjamin Gates.
 Harvey Keitel as Agent Peter Sadusky:An FBI Special Agent in charge of the theft of the Declaration of Independence.
 Christopher Plummer as John Adams Gates:The father of Patrick Gates and the grandfather of Benjamin Gates. 
 Jack Koenig portrays a young version of Founding Father Charles Carroll; David Dayan Fisher appears as Shaw, Stewart Finlay-McLennan as Powell, Oleg Taktarov as Viktor Shippen, and Stephen Pope as Phil McGregor (Ian's henchmen); Annie Parisse, Mark Pellegrino, Armando Riesco, and Erik King play agents Dawes, Ted Johnson, Hendricks, and Colfax, respectively. Jason Earles portrays Thomas Gates.
Production[edit]
Development[edit]
By early 1999, it was revealed that Jon Turteltaub was developing National Treasure based upon an idea developed by Oren Aviv and Charles Segars in 1997, with a script by Jim Kouf. [5]  By 2001, the project was relocated to Touchstone Pictures. [6] 
      Film set for the underground chambers beneath Trinity Church  
In May 2003, Nicolas Cage was cast as the lead. [7]  New drafts were written by nine scribers, including Cormac and Marianne Wibberley, [7]  E. Max Frye, and Jon Turteltaub. [8]  By October, Sean Bean was cast. [4] 
Filming locations[edit]
 National Treasure was filmed primarily in Washington, New York, Philadelphia and Utah. Most scenes were filmed on location, with the exceptions of the Independence Hall scene, which was filmed at the replica of Independence Hall at Knott's Berry Farm, and the Arctic scene, which was filmed in Utah. [9] 
Soundtrack[edit]
   National Treasure (Original Score)    Film score by   Trevor Rabin      Released November 16, 2004   Recorded 2004    Genre  Stage &amp; screen   Length 38:45    Label   Hollywood     Producer  Trevor Rabin   
 Professional ratings   Review scores   Source Rating    AllMusic    [10]     
 All tracks are written by Trevor Rabin.     No.  Title Length   1. "National Treasure Suite" 3:17   2. "Ben" 4:03   3. "Finding Charlotte" 1:04   4. "Library of Congress" 2:27   5. "Preparation Montage" 4:53   6. "Arrival at National Archives" 1:54   7. "The Chase" 4:22   8. "Declaration of Independence" 1:43   9. "Foot Chase" 3:34   10. "Spectacle Discovery" 3:18   11. "Interrogation" 4:30   12. "Treasure" 3:39   Total length: 38:45    
Portrayal of Declaration of Independence[edit]
The film's suggestion that the original Declaration of Independence still has clearly visible ink is inaccurate. The document's ink dried over time due to exposure to damaging lighting, with little ink still existing by 1876. [11]   [12]  But viewers are often surprised to learn that many plot points in National Treasure and its sequel are inspired by true, often little-known, events in history. Since 2020, an independent podcast, the National Treasure Hunt, has conducted deep dives into many of these historical events. [13] 
Reception[edit]
Box office[edit]
 National Treasure earned $11 million on its opening day in the United States, ahead of Paramount &amp; Nickelodeon's  The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie  (which earned $9,559,752). [14]   [15]  It grossed $35,142,554 during its opening weekend, on 4,300 screens at 3,243 theaters, averaging $11,648 per venue, again ahead of The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. [16]   [17]   [18]   [19]  The film had the best opening weekend for a Disney film released in November until it was surpassed by  Chicken Little  in 2005. It held on to the No. 1 spot for three weekends. In Japan, National Treasure bested the double-billing  MegaMan NT Warrior: Program of Light and Dark  and  Duel Masters: Curse of the Deathphoenix , grossing $11,666,763 in its first week. The film closed on June 2, 2005, with a domestic gross of $173,008,894 and earning $174,503,424 internationally. Worldwide, National Treasure grossed over $347,512,318, against a budget of $100 million. [1] 
Critical reception[edit]
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 46% based on 179 reviews, and an average rating of 5.30/10. The site's consensus reads, "National Treasure is no treasure, but it's a fun ride for those who can forgive its highly improbable plot." [20]  On Metacritic, the film has a score of 39 out of 100, based on 35 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews". [21]  Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A−" on an A+ to F scale. [22]   [23] 
  Roger Ebert gave the film 2/4 stars, calling it "so silly that the Monty Python version could use the same screenplay, line for line." [24]  Academic David Bordwell has expressed a liking for the film, placing it in the tradition of 1950s Disney children's adventure movies, [25]  and using it as the basis for an essay on scene transitions in classical Hollywood cinema. [26] 
Awards[edit]
 
Year
Award
Category
Notes
Result
 
2005
BMI Film &amp; TV Awards
BMI Film Music Award
BMI Film Music Award for Trevor Rabin
Won
 
2005
Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy &amp; Horror Films, USA
Saturn Award for Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film
Nominated
 
2005
Saturn Award for Best Supporting Actress
 Diane Kruger
Nominated
 
2005
Teen Choice Awards
Movie: Action/Adventure
Nominated
 
2005
Visual Effects Society Awards
Outstanding Models and Miniatures in a Motion Picture
Matthew Gratzner, Forest Fischer, Scott Beverly,and Leigh-Alexandra Jacob, for the treasure room
Nominated
 
2005
World Stunt Awards
Taurus Award for Best Overall Stunt by a Stunt Woman
Lisa Hoyle
Nominated
 
2005
Young Artist Awards
Best Family Feature Film: Drama
Nominated
 
2005
Young Artist Awards
Best Performance in a Feature Film, Supporting Young Actor
 Hunter Gomez
Nominated
 
 
Home media[edit]
 National Treasure was released on Disney DVD in May 2005. In keeping with the movie's theme, the DVD contains a "Bonus Treasure Hunt": viewers who watch the Special Features on the disc are rewarded with puzzles and codes that unlock more features.
Collector's Edition DVD[edit]
To help promote Book of Secrets, a special collector's edition, two-disc DVD set of the movie was released on December 18, 2007. The set features a bonus disc containing additional deleted scenes and documentaries. [27] 
Blu-ray[edit]
 Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment released Blu-ray versions of National Treasure and its sequel, National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets, on May 20, 2008. [28] 
Sequels[edit]
Although the DVD commentary stated that there were no plans for a sequel, the film's box office gross of an unexpected $347.5 million worldwide warranted a second film, which was given the green light in 2005.  National Treasure: Book of Secrets  was released on December 21, 2007.
 In 2008, director Jon Turteltaub said that the filmmaking team would take its time on another National Treasure sequel. [29]  In October 2013, Turteltaub confirmed that he, the studio, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and the actors all wanted to do a third film, saying: "We want to do the movie, Disney wants to do the movie. We're just having the damnedest time writing it. I'll bet that within two years, we'll be shooting that movie. I'd say we're about halfway there." [30]  In May 2016, Cage confirmed the film was still in the writing process, [31]  and in July 2018, Turtletaub reiterated that a script for a possible third film was "close", but Disney still was not completely sold on it. [32]  In January 2020, it was announced that Chris Bremner, the writer of  Bad Boys for Life , would write a new script. [33] 
 In May 2020, Jerry Bruckheimer confirmed that, not only was there a third film in development with the original cast returning, but also that a Disney+ series was in the works with the same premise as the original, but focusing on a much younger cast. [34] 
 During an April 2022 AMA (Ask Me Anything) thread on Reddit, Cage said of the possibility of future installments: "No, the priority was to turn it into a TV show so I would say probably not." [35] 
See also[edit]
  Arnold Cipher 
 Beale ciphers 
 Nicholas Dietrich, Baron de Ottendorf  
References[edit]
 
^    a       b       c     "Box office statistics for National Treasure (2004)".  Box Office Mojo . Retrieved April 10, 2007..
  ^   "'National Treasure' cashes in on wacky heist".
  ^  Vitale, Simona. "Il mistero dei Templari - National Treasure, trama e cast del primo film con Nicolas Cage". Mondo Fox (in Italian). Fox Networks Group. Retrieved May 12, 2018.
^    a       b    Feiwell, Jill; Harris, Dana (October 13, 2003). "Sean Bean". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
  ^  Cox, Dan; Carver, Benedict (February 22, 1999). "'Treasure' found". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
  ^  Fleming, Michael (July 31, 2001). "Helmer digs for 'Treasure'". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
^    a       b    Fleming, Michael (May 27, 2003). "Cage unearths 'Treasure'". Variety. Archived from the original on October 6, 2016. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
  ^  The Wibberley's (April 9, 2003). "National Treasure Draft" (PDF). Patriot Resource. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
  ^   "Locations for National Treasure". Internet Movie Database. Retrieved March 2, 2013.
  ^  Unterberger, Richie. "Trevor Rabin, National Treasure (Original Score)". AllMusic.com. Retrieved December 10, 2015.
  ^   "The Declaration of Independence Has Had a Fairly Rough Time, but Preservationists Have Saved It". July 3, 2020.
  ^  Ruane, Michael E. (October 21, 2016). "Was the Declaration of Independence 'defaced'? Experts say yes".  Washington Post .
  ^  National Treasure Hunt. "National Treasure Hunt | Podcast, Book, Tour &amp; More". National Treasure Hunt. Retrieved April 21, 2022.
  ^   "Daily Box Office for Friday, November 19, 2004". Box Office Mojo. 2004.
  ^  Duong, Senh (November 20, 2004). "BOX OFFICE: Friday Estimates - 1. ?Treasure? $11M, 2. ?Square pants? $9.4M". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
  ^   "November 19-21, 2004 Weekend". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
  ^  Gray, Brandon (November 22, 2004). "'National Treasure,' 'SpongeBob' Clean Up". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
  ^   "SpongeBob squeezed at box office". BBC. November 22, 2004. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
  ^  Peterson, Todd (November 22, 2004). "Treasure Makes Bank at the Box Office". People. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
  ^   "National Treasure".  Rotten Tomatoes . Retrieved January 21, 2021.
  ^   "National Treasure".  Metacritic . Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  ^  Mark Hofmeyer (November 19, 2019). "5 Reasons National Treasure Is Still a Fan Favorite".  Rotten Tomatoes .
  ^   "Cinemascore". Archived from the original on December 20, 2018.
  ^  Ebert, Roger. "National Treasure".  Chicago Sun-Times .
  ^  Bordwell, David (January 5, 2008). "Your trash, my Treasure". Retrieved January 30, 2010.
  ^  Bordwell, David (January 2008). "The Hook: Scene Transitions in Classical Cinema". Retrieved January 30, 2010.
  ^   "Collectors Edition". dvdmg.com. Retrieved March 8, 2018.
  ^   "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment Announces the Disney Blu-Ray Title Wave Coming 2008". High-Def Digest. August 17, 2007. Retrieved September 27, 2007.
  ^  Kirkland, Bruce (May 30, 2008). "'National Treasure 3' in works". Jam!. CA: Canoe. Archived from the original on July 17, 2012.
  ^  Franklin, Garth (October 22, 2013). "A "National Treasure 3" Is On The Way?". Dark Horizons. Archived from the original on March 31, 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2018.
  ^   "'National Treasure 3': Nic Cage Says the Writers Are Still Fact-Checking".  Collider . May 25, 2016.
  ^  Alyssa Fikse (July 30, 2018). "The Director Of 'National Treasure' Explains Why We Haven't Gotten A Third Movie Yet". Uproxx. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  ^  Kit, Borys (January 17, 2020). "'Bad Boys 4' in the Works (Exclusive)".  The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  ^  Mancuso, Vinnie (May 7, 2020). "Exclusive: 'National Treasure' Disney+ Series In Development". Collider. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
  ^   "r/movies Nicolas Cage's AMA". Reddit. April 10, 2022.
 
External links[edit]
  Official website 
  National Treasure  at IMDb 
  National Treasure  at AllMovie 
  National Treasure  at Box Office Mojo
National Treasure (film) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Treasure_(film)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/
National Treasure (2004) - IMDb
2004-11-19
None
<div><div><div><section><p><a href="/title/tt0368891/videogallery/?ref_=tt_vi_sm"><h3>Videos13</h3></a></p></section><div><hgroup><h3>More like this</h3></hgroup></div><section><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/review/tt0368891/add?bus=imdb&amp;return_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fclose_me&amp;site=web&amp;ref_=tt_urv_add"><p>Review</p></a><div><div> <p>Witty Fast-Paced Fun Adventure-Thriller For All Ages</p><div><p>Jon Turtletaub's best film must endure the critics propensity to penalize highly popular commercially successful family-friendly Disney films... "What does the common folk know about filmmaking?" It's much better than most of those reviews indicate.</p><p>Yes, this film works hard to be likable and appealing to a mass audience - perhaps it's just too preposterous a story, and has too much witty repertoire to be taken seriously by some critics. Witty repertoire CAN wear thin and become precocious in movies, but in 'National Treasure', it's the film's most endearing and appealing factor, carried off successfully by some of the most experienced actors in the business - They keep the film fun and pull off their quips with deft skill - Bravo!</p><p>A well casted, directed and edited film that doesn't pretend to be more than it is, and delivers what audiences came to see.</p><p>Enjoy this snappy-paced treasure hunt Disney ride without guilt - it's OK to have escapism fun watching movies, and this one does it as well as any, so grab a bowl of popcorn and indulge yourself.</p><p>👍👍</p></div></div><div><ul><li><a href="/user/ur39322316/?ref_=tt_urv_usr">Instant_Palmer</a></li><li>Jan 22, 2022</li></ul></div></div></section><section><p><a href="/title/tt0368891/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm"><h3>FAQ10</h3></a></p></section><div><hgroup><h3>Contribute to this page</h3></hgroup><p>Suggest an edit or add missing content</p></div></div><div><section><p><hgroup><h3>More to explore</h3></hgroup></p></section></div></div>||||I|||| Menu
 Movies
 Release Calendar Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Browse Movies by Genre Top Box Office Showtimes & Tickets Movie News India Movie Spotlight
 TV Shows
 What's on TV & Streaming Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Browse TV Shows by Genre TV News India TV Spotlight
 Watch
 What to Watch Latest Trailers IMDb Originals IMDb Picks IMDb Podcasts
 Awards & Events
 Oscars Best Picture Winners Best Picture Winners Sundance Film Festival Independent Spirit Awards Black History Month SXSW STARmeter Awards Awards Central Festival Central All Events
 Celebs
 Born Today Most Popular Celebs Most Popular Celebs Celebrity News
 Community
 Help Center Contributor Zone Polls
 For Industry Professionals
 All
 * All
 * Titles
 * TV Episodes
 * Celebs
 * Companies
 * Keywords
 * 
 Advanced Search
 Watchlist
 Sign In
 Sign In
 New Customer? Create account
 EN
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 * Cast & crew
 * User reviews
 * Trivia
 IMDbPro
 All topics

 National Treasure

 * 2004 2004
 * PG PG
 * 2h 11m
 IMDb RATING
 6.9 / 10
 339K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 771
 180
 Play trailer 2 :32
 13 Videos
 99+ Photos
 Action Adventure Mystery
 A historian races to find the legendary Templar Treasure before a team of mercenaries. A historian races to find the legendary Templar Treasure before a team of mercenaries. A historian races to find the legendary Templar Treasure before a team of mercenaries.
 IMDb RATING
 6.9 / 10
 339K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 771
 180
 * Director
 + Jon Turteltaub
 * Writers
 + Jim Kouf (screenplay)
 + Cormac Wibberley (screenplay)
 + Marianne Wibberley (screenplay)
 * Stars
 + Nicolas Cage
 + Diane Kruger
 + Justin Bartha
 Top credits
 * Director
 + Jon Turteltaub
 * Writers
 + Jim Kouf (screenplay)
 + Cormac Wibberley (screenplay)
 + Marianne Wibberley (screenplay)
 * Stars
 + Nicolas Cage
 + Diane Kruger
 + Justin Bartha
 * See production, box office & company info
 Watch on Prime Video
 rent/buy from $3.99
 More watch options
 Add to Watchlist
 Added by 172K users
 * 790 User reviews
 * 189 Critic reviews
 * 40 Metascore
 * See more at IMDbPro
 * Awards
 + 1 win & 9 nominations

 Videos 13

 Trailer 2:32
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:41
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:05
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 0:51
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:04
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:54
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 0:48
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:53
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:22
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:02
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 1:03
 Watch National Treasure
 Clip 0:42
 Watch National Treasure

 Photos 221

 Top cast

 Edit
 Nicolas Cage
 * Benjamin Franklin Gates
 Diane Kruger
 * Abigail Chase
 Justin Bartha
 * Riley Poole
 Sean Bean
 * Ian Howe
 Jon Voight
 * Patrick Gates
 Harvey Keitel
 * Sadusky
 Christopher Plummer
 * John Adams Gates
 David Dayan Fisher
 * Shaw
 Stewart Finlay-McLennan
 * Powell
 Oleg Taktarov
 * Shippen
 Stephen A. Pope
 * Phil
 * (as Stephen Pope)
 Annie Parisse
 * Agent Dawes
 Mark Pellegrino
 * Agent Johnson
 Armando Riesco
 * Agent Hendricks
 Erik King
 * Agent Colfax
 Don McManus
 * Dr. Stan Herbert
 Ron Canada
 * Guard Woodruff
 Hunter Gomez
 * Young Ben Gates
 * Director
 + Jon Turteltaub
 * Writers
 + Jim Kouf (screenplay) (story)
 + Cormac Wibberley (screenplay)
 + Marianne Wibberley (screenplay)
 * All cast & crew
 * Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

 More like this

 6.5
 National Treasure: Book of Secrets
 Watch options
 5.5
 National Treasure: Edge of History
 Watchlist
 6.5
 Gone in 60 Seconds
 Watch options
 6.9
 Con Air
 Watch options
 7.4
 The Rock
 Watch options
 6.4
 The Mummy Returns
 Watch options
 7.3
 Face/Off
 Watch options
 6.7
 Armageddon
 Watch options
 6.6
 The Da Vinci Code
 Watch options
 7.3
 Speed
 Watch options
 7.1
 The Mummy
 Watch options
 6.7
 Angels & Demons
 Watch options

 Storyline

 Edit

 Did you know

 Edit
 * Trivia
 The movie includes footage from the first filming allowed in the tower of Philadelphia's Independence Hall.
 * Goofs
 It is said the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776, when in fact, it was only adopted on that day. It was not actually engrossed on parchment, and signed until August 2nd, 1776. The copy that was signed on July 4th was a "rough journal" as it was called, and then only signed by John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress and Charles Thomson, the Secretary.
 * Quotes

 Abigail Chase: What do you see?

 Ben Gates: 2:22.

 Abigail Chase: What time is it now?

 Clothing Store Clerk: Almost 3.

 Abigail Chase: [sighs] We missed it.

 Riley Poole: No, we didn't. We didn't miss it because... you don't know this? I know something about history that you don't know.

 Ben Gates: I'd be very excited to learn about it, Riley.

 Riley Poole: Hold on one second, let me just take in this moment. This is cool. Is this how you feel all the time? Well, except now.

 Abigail Chase: Riley!

 Riley Poole: All right! What I know is that daylight savings wasn't established until World War I. If it's 3 p.m. now that means that in 1776 it would be 2 p.m.

 Ben Gates: Riley, you're a genius.

 * Crazy credits
 The Jerry Bruckheimer Productions logo sequence blacks out before it finishes running.
 * Connections
 Edited into The Arrivals (2008)
 * Soundtracks
 String Quartet Op. 33 No. 2 in E Flat ('The Joke')
 Written by Joseph Haydn (as Franz Joseph Haydn)
 Performed by The Lindsays
 Courtesy of Sanctuary Records Group Ltd.

 User reviews 790

 Review
 Review
 Featured review
 8 / 10
 Witty Fast-Paced Fun Adventure-Thriller For All Ages
 Jon Turtletaub's best film must endure the critics propensity to penalize highly popular commercially successful family-friendly Disney films... "What does the common folk know about filmmaking?" It's much better than most of those reviews indicate.

 Yes, this film works hard to be likable and appealing to a mass audience - perhaps it's just too preposterous a story, and has too much witty repertoire to be taken seriously by some critics. Witty repertoire CAN wear thin and become precocious in movies, but in 'National Treasure', it's the film's most endearing and appealing factor, carried off successfully by some of the most experienced actors in the business - They keep the film fun and pull off their quips with deft skill - Bravo!

 A well casted, directed and edited film that doesn't pretend to be more than it is, and delivers what audiences came to see.

 Enjoy this snappy-paced treasure hunt Disney ride without guilt - it's OK to have escapism fun watching movies, and this one does it as well as any, so grab a bowl of popcorn and indulge yourself.

 👍👍
 helpful • 22
 0
 * Instant_Palmer
 * Jan 22, 2022

 FAQ 10

 * What is "National Treasure" about?
 * Is National Treasure based on a book?
 * Why was the treasure hidden in the first place?

 Details

 Edit
 * Release date
 + November 19, 2004 (United States)
 * Country of origin
 + United States
 * Official sites
 + Official site
 + Stream National Treasure officially on Disney+ Hotstar Indonesia
 * Languages
 + English
 + Spanish
 * Also known as
 + Kho Báu Quốc Gia
 * Filming locations
 + Utah, USA
 * Production companies
 + Walt Disney Pictures
 + Jerry Bruckheimer Films
 + Junction Entertainment
 * See more company credits at IMDbPro

 Box office

 Edit
 * Budget
 + $100,000,000 (estimated)
 * Gross US & Canada
 + $173,008,894
 * Opening weekend US & Canada
 + $35,142,554
 + Nov 21, 2004
 * Gross worldwide
 + $347,512,318
 See detailed box office info on IMDbPro

 Technical specs

 Edit
 * Runtime
 2 hours 11 minutes
 * Color
 + Color
 * Sound mix
 + DTS
 + SDDS
 + Dolby Digital
 * Aspect ratio
 + 2.39 : 1

 Related news

 Contribute to this page

 Suggest an edit or add missing content
 * IMDb Answers: Help fill gaps in our data
 * Learn more about contributing
 Edit page

 More to explore

 Back to top

 Recently viewed

 Clear all
 National Treasure
 Get the IMDb App
 Sign in for more access
 Sign in for more access
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Get the IMDb App
 * Help
 * Site Index
 * IMDbPro
 * Box Office Mojo
 * IMDb Developer
 * Press Room
 * Advertising
 * Jobs
 * Conditions of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Your Ads Privacy Choices
 * 

 © 1990-2023 by IMDb.com, Inc.

Videos13      More like this     Review    Witty Fast-Paced Fun Adventure-Thriller For All Ages  Jon Turtletaub's best film must endure the critics propensity to penalize highly popular commercially successful family-friendly Disney films... "What does the common folk know about filmmaking?" It's much better than most of those reviews indicate. Yes, this film works hard to be likable and appealing to a mass audience - perhaps it's just too preposterous a story, and has too much witty repertoire to be taken seriously by some critics. Witty repertoire CAN wear thin and become precocious in movies, but in 'National Treasure', it's the film's most endearing and appealing factor, carried off successfully by some of the most experienced actors in the business - They keep the film fun and pull off their quips with deft skill - Bravo! A well casted, directed and edited film that doesn't pretend to be more than it is, and delivers what audiences came to see. Enjoy this snappy-paced treasure hunt Disney ride without guilt - it's OK to have escapism fun watching movies, and this one does it as well as any, so grab a bowl of popcorn and indulge yourself. 👍👍      Instant_Palmer  Jan 22, 2022        FAQ10      Contribute to this page  Suggest an edit or add missing content       More to explore
National Treasure (2004) - IMDb
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465234/
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) - IMDb
2007-12-21
None
<div><div><section><p><a href="/title/tt0465234/videogallery/?ref_=tt_vi_sm"><h3>Videos4</h3></a></p></section><div><hgroup><h3>More like this</h3></hgroup></div><div><div><p>Several years since Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) found the Knight's Templar and became rich and famous. Now, another treasure hunter named Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) has found what is a missing page of the diary of John Wilkes Booth, which contains clues to the location of a lost city of gold, Ben must compete against Mitch to find the lost city, he goes to France and Great Britain to find other clues and even peak inside the President's secret book to put the pieces of the puzzle together, his parents and his friends also help Ben find the lost city and to stay one step ahead of Mitch. —<a href="/search/title/?plot_author=John%20Wiggins&amp;view=simple&amp;sort=alpha&amp;ref_=tt_stry_pl">John Wiggins</a></p></div><ul><li><a href="/title/tt0465234/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl">Plot summary</a></li><li><a href="/title/tt0465234/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl">Plot synopsis</a></li></ul></div><section><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/review/tt0465234/add?bus=imdb&amp;return_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fclose_me&amp;site=web&amp;ref_=tt_urv_add"><p>Review</p></a><div><div> <p>Enjoyable and recommendable</p><div><p>It was a good movie but not as good as the first one. I think that its just the same story as the first one with very little changes. Treasure hunter Ben Gates tries to clean its name by looking for an ancient treasure. The first half of the movie is kinda slow and even tiresome, too much talking and very little action. But it gets better on the second part towards to the end. The cast is excellent, Nicolas Cage in a role he knows very well, Jon Voight as Cage fathers is very convincing, Ed Harris is the bad guy that the only thing he wants is to find the treasure and keep it to himself, Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent wit a brief but convincing performance and Helen Mirren as Nicola's mother with a good and even funny performance. Although this movie isn't the greatest thing, it is very enjoyable and entertaining, perfect to spend some time with the family.</p></div></div><div><ul><li><a href="/user/ur6208088/?ref_=tt_urv_usr">barrys82</a></li><li>Jan 1, 2008</li></ul></div></div></section><section><div><a href="/what-to-watch/top-picks/?ref_=tt_tpks_sm"><h3>Top picks</h3></a><p>Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations</p></div><a href="/registration/signin?ref_=tt_tpks_signin"><p>Sign in</p></a></section><section><p><a href="/title/tt0465234/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm"><h3>FAQ13</h3></a></p></section><section><div><hgroup><h3>Contribute to this page</h3></hgroup><p>Suggest an edit or add missing content</p></div><div><div><p></p></div><div><p>What is the Japanese language plot outline for National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)?</p><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/answers?pinnedQuestion=tt0465234.plot_outline.ja-JP&amp;ref_=tt_ans_q">Answer</a></p></div></div></section></div>||||I|||| Menu
 Movies
 Release Calendar Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Browse Movies by Genre Top Box Office Showtimes & Tickets Movie News India Movie Spotlight
 TV Shows
 What's on TV & Streaming Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Browse TV Shows by Genre TV News India TV Spotlight
 Watch
 What to Watch Latest Trailers IMDb Originals IMDb Picks IMDb Podcasts
 Awards & Events
 Oscars Best Picture Winners Best Picture Winners Sundance Film Festival Independent Spirit Awards Black History Month SXSW STARmeter Awards Awards Central Festival Central All Events
 Celebs
 Born Today Most Popular Celebs Most Popular Celebs Celebrity News
 Community
 Help Center Contributor Zone Polls
 For Industry Professionals
 All
 * All
 * Titles
 * TV Episodes
 * Celebs
 * Companies
 * Keywords
 * 
 Advanced Search
 Watchlist
 Sign In
 Sign In
 New Customer? Create account
 EN
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 SPONSORED
 * Cast & crew
 * User reviews
 * Trivia
 IMDbPro
 All topics

 National Treasure: Book of Secrets

 * 2007 2007
 * PG PG
 * 2h 4m
 IMDb RATING
 6.5 / 10
 243K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 2,918
 343
 This video file cannot be played.(Error Code: 224003)
 Play trailer 2 :41
 4 Videos
 99+ Photos
 Action Adventure Mystery
 Benjamin Gates must follow a clue left in John Wilkes Booth's diary to prove his ancestor's innocence in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Benjamin Gates must follow a clue left in John Wilkes Booth's diary to prove his ancestor's innocence in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Benjamin Gates must follow a clue left in John Wilkes Booth's diary to prove his ancestor's innocence in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
 IMDb RATING
 6.5 / 10
 243K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 2,918
 343
 * Director
 + Jon Turteltaub
 * Writers
 + Marianne Wibberley (screenplay)
 + Cormac Wibberley (screenplay)
 + Gregory Poirier (story)
 * Stars
 + Nicolas Cage
 + Diane Kruger
 + Justin Bartha
 Top credits
 * Director
 + Jon Turteltaub
 * Writers
 + Marianne Wibberley (screenplay)
 + Cormac Wibberley (screenplay)
 + Gregory Poirier (story)
 * Stars
 + Nicolas Cage
 + Diane Kruger
 + Justin Bartha
 * See production, box office & company info
 Watch on Prime Video
 rent/buy from $3.99
 More watch options
 Add to Watchlist
 * 349 User reviews
 * 180 Critic reviews
 * 48 Metascore
 * See more at IMDbPro
 * Awards
 + 1 win & 5 nominations
 SPONSORED

 Videos 4

 Trailer 2:41
 Watch U.S. theatrical trailer: National Treasure: Book of Secrets
 Trailer 2:33
 Watch National Treasure: Book of Secrets
 Clip 1:10
 Watch National Treasure: Book of Secrets
 Clip 0:54
 Watch National Treasure: Book of Secrets

 Photos 215

 Top cast

 Edit
 Nicolas Cage
 * Ben Gates
 Diane Kruger
 * Abigail Chase
 Justin Bartha
 * Riley Poole
 Jon Voight
 * Patrick Gates
 Helen Mirren
 * Emily Appleton
 Ed Harris
 * Mitch Wilkinson
 Harvey Keitel
 * Sadusky
 Bruce Greenwood
 * The President
 Ty Burrell
 * Connor
 Michael Maize
 * Daniel
 Timothy V. Murphy
 * Seth
 * (as Timothy Murphy)
 Alicia Coppola
 * FBI Agent Spellman
 Armando Riesco
 * FBI Agent Hendricks
 Albert Hall
 * Dr. Nichols
 Joel Gretsch
 * Thomas Gates
 Christian Camargo
 * John Wilkes Booth
 Brent Briscoe
 * Michael O'Laughlen
 William Brent
 * Charles Gates
 * (as Billy Unger)
 * Director
 + Jon Turteltaub
 * Writers
 + Marianne Wibberley (screenplay) (story)
 + Cormac Wibberley (screenplay) (story)
 + Gregory Poirier (story)
 * All cast & crew
 * Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

 More like this

 6.9
 National Treasure
 Watch options
 6.5
 Gone in 60 Seconds
 Watch options
 5.6
 National Treasure: Edge of History
 Watchlist
 6.4
 The Mummy Returns
 Watch options
 6.7
 Angels & Demons
 Watch options
 7.4
 The Rock
 Watch options
 6.9
 Con Air
 Watch options
 6.6
 The Da Vinci Code
 Watch options
 6.7
 Armageddon
 Watch options
 7.3
 Face/Off
 Watch options
 6.2
 Next
 Watch options
 7.1
 The Mummy
 Watch options

 Storyline

 Edit
 Several years since Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) found the Knight's Templar and became rich and famous. Now, another treasure hunter named Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) has found what is a missing page of the diary of John Wilkes Booth, which contains clues to the location of a lost city of gold, Ben must compete against Mitch to find the lost city, he goes to France and Great Britain to find other clues and even peak inside the President's secret book to put the pieces of the puzzle together, his parents and his friends also help Ben find the lost city and to stay one step ahead of Mitch. —John Wiggins
 divorce abraham lincoln character john wilkes booth character mary todd lincoln character blonde 165 more
 * Plot summary
 * Plot synopsis
 * Genres
 + Action
 + Adventure
 + Mystery
 + Thriller
 * Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)
 + Rated PG for some violence and action
 * Parents guide

 Did you know

 Edit
 * Trivia
 Disney discovered that the shooting schedule at Mount Rushmore would displace the local Hill City High School prom that is held annually at the location. To make up for this, Disney paid for the prom by providing transportation to a new location in Rapid City, door prizes at the prom, and scholarships for the valedictorians.
 * Goofs
 Although a cell phone can be "cloned" in real life, the "cloned" phone cannot allow its user to eavesdrop on a connection made between the "host" phone and another phone.
 * Quotes

 Ben Gates: [as he's taking off his diving suit to reveal his tuxedo] Maybe one day I'll wear this to a party I'm actually invited to.

 * Crazy credits
 The Jerry Bruckheimer logo becomes a real life version of itself as a road some Union soldiers walk along towards 1865 Washington DC.
 * Connections
 Featured in Siskel & Ebert: National Treasure: Book of Secrets/P.S., I Love You/Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story/Charlie Wilson's War/The Great Debaters (2007)
 * Soundtracks
 Familiar Places II
 Written by Barry De Vorzon (as Barry Devorzon), Richard Hazard
 Courtesy of APM Music

 User reviews 349

 Review
 Review
 Featured review
 7 / 10
 Enjoyable and recommendable
 It was a good movie but not as good as the first one. I think that its just the same story as the first one with very little changes. Treasure hunter Ben Gates tries to clean its name by looking for an ancient treasure. The first half of the movie is kinda slow and even tiresome, too much talking and very little action. But it gets better on the second part towards to the end. The cast is excellent, Nicolas Cage in a role he knows very well, Jon Voight as Cage fathers is very convincing, Ed Harris is the bad guy that the only thing he wants is to find the treasure and keep it to himself, Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent wit a brief but convincing performance and Helen Mirren as Nicola's mother with a good and even funny performance. Although this movie isn't the greatest thing, it is very enjoyable and entertaining, perfect to spend some time with the family.
 helpful • 51
 30
 * barrys82
 * Jan 1, 2008

 Top picks

 Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
 Sign in
 6.9
 National Treasure
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.5
 Gone in 60 Seconds
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.7
 Angels & Demons
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.2
 Next
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.4
 The Mummy Returns
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.4
 The Rock
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.6
 The Da Vinci Code
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.5
 Air Force One
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.3
 Face/Off
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.9
 Con Air
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.2
 Knowing
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.3
 Speed
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.2
 Inferno
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.7
 Armageddon
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.3
 Enemy of the State
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.6
 Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.4
 The Day After Tomorrow
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.1
 The Mummy
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.3
 White House Down
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.8
 Bad Boys
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.9
 Ocean's Thirteen
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.0
 Van Helsing
 Watch options
 6.2
 Pearl Harbor
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.8
 The Fugitive
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.0
 Underworld
 Watch options
 Trailer
 7.0
 The Italian Job
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.5
 U.S. Marshals
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.6
 Bad Boys II
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.7
 The A-Team
 Watch options
 Trailer
 6.8
 Hellboy
 Watch options
 Trailer

 FAQ 13

 * What is "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" about?
 * Is "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" based on a book?
 * What is the Book of Secrets?

 Details

 Edit
 * Release date
 + December 21, 2007 (United States)
 * Country of origin
 + United States
 * Official sites
 + Official site
 + Stream National Treasure : Book of Secrets officially on Disney+ Hotstar Indonesia
 * Languages
 + English
 + French
 * Also known as
 + National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets
 * Filming locations
 + Sylvan Lake, South Dakota, USA
 * Production companies
 + Walt Disney Pictures
 + Jerry Bruckheimer Films
 + Junction Entertainment
 * See more company credits at IMDbPro

 Box office

 Edit
 * Budget
 + $130,000,000 (estimated)
 * Gross US & Canada
 + $219,964,115
 * Opening weekend US & Canada
 + $44,783,772
 + Dec 23, 2007
 * Gross worldwide
 + $459,242,249
 See detailed box office info on IMDbPro

 Technical specs

 Edit
 * Runtime
 2 hours 4 minutes
 * Color
 + Color
 * Sound mix
 + DTS
 + Dolby Digital
 + SDDS
 * Aspect ratio
 + 2.39 : 1

 Related news

 Marlowe Cast & Character Guide
 Feb 15 ScreenRant.com
 How Liam’s Book In Edge Of History Can Set Up National Treasure 3
 Jan 26 ScreenRant.com

 Contribute to this page

 Suggest an edit or add missing content
 Top Gap
 What is the Japanese language plot outline for National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)?
 Answer
 * See more gaps
 * Learn more about contributing
 Edit page

 More to explore

 Photos
 Black Hollywood Stars to Watch
 See the gallery
 Photos
 Famous Mothers and Their Famous Children
 See the gallery

 User lists

 Related lists from IMDb users
 Create a list
 Watched 2023
 created 1 month ago • 48 titles
 History
 created 4 years ago • 48 titles
 Action
 created 4 years ago • 45 titles
 4) Call of dutty y clases de historia
 created 1 week ago • 47 titles
 Movies of 2007
 created 3 years ago • 28 titles
 Watchlist (Outros gêneros)
 created 1 year ago • 49 titles

 User polls

 Related polls from IMDb users
 The Best Nicolas Cage Moments
 Books That Play an Important Role in the Movie
 Favorite Ed Harris Film
 The Mount Rushmore State Movies
 The Old Line State Movies
 White House Movies
 List
 New and Upcoming Superhero Movies and Series
 See the list
 Back to top

 Recently viewed

 Clear all
 National Treasure: Book of Secrets
 Get the IMDb App
 Sign in for more access
 Sign in for more access
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Get the IMDb App
 * Help
 * Site Index
 * IMDbPro
 * Box Office Mojo
 * IMDb Developer
 * Press Room
 * Advertising
 * Jobs
 * Conditions of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Your Ads Privacy Choices

 © 1990-2023 by IMDb.com, Inc.

Videos4      More like this     Several years since Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) found the Knight's Templar and became rich and famous. Now, another treasure hunter named Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) has found what is a missing page of the diary of John Wilkes Booth, which contains clues to the location of a lost city of gold, Ben must compete against Mitch to find the lost city, he goes to France and Great Britain to find other clues and even peak inside the President's secret book to put the pieces of the puzzle together, his parents and his friends also help Ben find the lost city and to stay one step ahead of Mitch. —John Wiggins     Plot summary   Plot synopsis      Review    Enjoyable and recommendable  It was a good movie but not as good as the first one. I think that its just the same story as the first one with very little changes. Treasure hunter Ben Gates tries to clean its name by looking for an ancient treasure. The first half of the movie is kinda slow and even tiresome, too much talking and very little action. But it gets better on the second part towards to the end. The cast is excellent, Nicolas Cage in a role he knows very well, Jon Voight as Cage fathers is very convincing, Ed Harris is the bad guy that the only thing he wants is to find the treasure and keep it to himself, Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent wit a brief but convincing performance and Helen Mirren as Nicola's mother with a good and even funny performance. Although this movie isn't the greatest thing, it is very enjoyable and entertaining, perfect to spend some time with the family.      barrys82  Jan 1, 2008        Top picks  Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations   Sign in      FAQ13       Contribute to this page  Suggest an edit or add missing content        What is the Japanese language plot outline for National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)?  Answer
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) - IMDb
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465234/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/
National Treasure (TV Mini Series 2016) ⭐ 7.3 | Drama
2017-03-01
None
<div><div><section><section><section><div><ul><li>TV Mini Series</li><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_rdat">2016</a></li><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/parentalguide/certificates?ref_=tt_ov_pg">TV-MA</a></li><li>48m</li></ul></div><div><div><p></p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/mediaviewer/rm1997353728/?ref_=tt_ov_i"></a></div><div><section><p></p><li></li></section><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/reviews/?ref_=tt_ov_rt"></a></li><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/externalreviews/?ref_=tt_ov_rt"></a></li></ul><li></li></div></div></div></section></section><div><div><section><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/episodes?ref_=tt_eps_sm"><h3></h3></a></p></section><section><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/videogallery/?ref_=tt_vi_sm"><h3>Videos</h3></a></p><div><div><p></p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2900933913/?ref_=tt_vi_i_1"></a></div><div><p></p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/video/vi1642642713/?ref_=tt_vi_i_2"></a></div></div></section><div><hgroup><h3></h3></hgroup></div><section><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/review/tt5571524/add?bus=imdb&amp;return_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fclose_me&amp;site=web&amp;ref_=tt_urv_add"></a><div><div> <p></p><div><p>Doing a re-watch of visionary Marc Munden's filmography &amp; "National Treasure" is still one of the most technically impressive shows Channel 4's ever made in its entire history; genuinely insane how high the production values look for a series which would've been nowhere near as expensive as it appears on screen. Boasts truly exceptional filmmaking &amp; acts as an astonishing achievement for all the cast &amp; crew involved.</p><p>Writer &amp; creator Jack Thorne turns out some of his strongest scripts &amp; the direction (coupled with Ole Bratt Birkeland's stunning cinematography) elevates them even further. Each &amp; every episode's edited to perfection, scored beautifully by Cristobal Tapia De Veer &amp; the performances are outstanding - especially from Julie Walters, who truly shines here. Aged like fine wine.</p><p>Seriously, does anyone do topical stuff better than Marc Munden? Can't think of one single superior alternative. Time after time, he tackles potentially controversial subject matter in such an audacious &amp; unflinching way, without being exploitative / triggering. Strikes a phenomenal balance &amp; remains respectful whilst doing justice to the horror of the subject matter featured. Remarkable.</p></div></div><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/user/ur71088443/?ref_=tt_urv_usr">W011y4m5</a></li><li>Jul 3, 2022</li></ul></div></div></section><section><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/faq/?ref_=tt_faq_sm"><h3></h3></a></p></section><section><div><hgroup><h3></h3></hgroup><p>Suggest an edit or add missing content</p></div><div><div><p></p></div><div><p>By what name was National Treasure (2016) officially released in India in English?</p><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/answers?pinnedQuestion=tt5571524.title_aka.IN.en-US&amp;ref_=tt_ans_q">Answer</a></p></div></div><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/updates?ref_=tt_cn_edt&amp;edit=legacy%2Ftitle%2Ftt5571524%2F"></a><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/updates?ref_=tt_cn_eps&amp;update=episode&amp;parent=tt5571524"></a></p></section></div><div><p><hgroup><h3>More to explore</h3></hgroup></p></div></div></section></div></div>||||I|||| Menu
 Movies
 Release Calendar Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Browse Movies by Genre Top Box Office Showtimes & Tickets Movie News India Movie Spotlight
 TV Shows
 What's on TV & Streaming Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Browse TV Shows by Genre TV News
 Watch
 What to Watch Latest Trailers IMDb Originals IMDb Picks IMDb Spotlight IMDb Podcasts
 Awards & Events
 Oscars SXSW Film Festival Cannes Film Festival STARmeter Awards Awards Central Festival Central All Events
 Celebs
 Born Today Most Popular Celebs Celebrity News
 Community
 Help Center Contributor Zone Polls
 For Industry Professionals
 * Language
 English (United States)
 * Language
 * 
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 All
 * All
 * Titles
 * TV Episodes
 * Celebs
 * Companies
 * Keywords
 * 
 Advanced Search
 Watchlist
 Sign In
 Sign In
 New Customer? Create account
 EN
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 Use app
 Episode guide
 * Cast & crew
 * User reviews
 * Trivia
 * FAQ
 IMDbPro
 All topics

 National Treasure

 * TV Mini Series
 * 2016
 * TV-MA
 * 48m
 IMDb RATING
 7.3 / 10
 3.3K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 3,038
 351
 Play trailer 1 :21
 2 Videos
 13 Photos
 Drama

 Paul Finchley (Robbie Coltrane) is a bona fide "national treasure", one half of a popular, long-running comedy double act. However, the famous comedian's world is thrown into chaos when he i... Read all Paul Finchley (Robbie Coltrane) is a bona fide "national treasure", one half of a popular, long-running comedy double act. However, the famous comedian's world is thrown into chaos when he is accused of historic sexual abuse. Paul Finchley (Robbie Coltrane) is a bona fide "national treasure", one half of a popular, long-running comedy double act. However, the famous comedian's world is thrown into chaos when he is accused of historic sexual abuse.

 * Stars
 + Robbie Coltrane
 + Julie Walters
 + Andrea Riseborough
 * See production info at IMDbPro
 IMDb RATING
 7.3 / 10
 3.3K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 3,038
 351
 * Stars
 + Robbie Coltrane
 + Julie Walters
 + Andrea Riseborough
 * 16 User reviews
 * 9 Critic reviews
 * See production info at IMDbPro
 * Won 3 BAFTA Awards
 + 11 wins & 18 nominations total

 Episodes 4

 Browse episodes
 Top Top-rated 1 Season 2017

 Videos 2

 Trailer 1:21
 Watch National Treasure: Season 1
 Trailer 1:24
 Watch National Treasure

 Photos 13

 Top cast

 Edit
 Robbie Coltrane
 * Paul
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Julie Walters
 * Marie
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Andrea Riseborough
 * Dee
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Babou Ceesay
 * Jerome
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Mark Lewis Jones
 * Gerry
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Nadine Marshall
 * DI Palmer
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Tim McInnerny
 * Karl
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Graeme Hawley
 * Dan
 4 eps • 2016 4 episodes • 2016
 Cara Barton
 * Young Dee
 3 eps • 2016 3 episodes • 2016
 William Wright-Neblett
 * Billy
 3 eps • 2016 3 episodes • 2016
 Trystan Gravelle
 * Young Paul
 3 eps • 2016 3 episodes • 2016
 Lucy Speed
 * Young Marie
 3 eps • 2016 3 episodes • 2016
 Susan Lynch
 * Christina
 2 eps • 2016 2 episodes • 2016
 Kate Hardie
 * Rebecca
 2 eps • 2016 2 episodes • 2016
 Kerry Fox
 * Zoe
 2 eps • 2016 2 episodes • 2016
 Renaee-Mya Warden
 * Frances
 2 eps • 2016 2 episodes • 2016
 Jeremy Swift
 * Simon
 2 eps • 2016 2 episodes • 2016
 Rosalind Eleazar
 * Georgina
 2 eps • 2016 2 episodes • 2016
 * All cast & crew
 * Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

 More like this

 6.7
 National Treasure: Kiri
 5.9
 For Her Sins
 6.3
 The Accident
 7.1
 The Secret
 6.4
 Safe House
 6.9
 National Treasure
 6.7
 Without Sin
 7.5
 Faithless
 6.7
 The Interrogation of Tony Martin
 7.2
 The Thief, His Wife and the Canoe
 7.1
 Liar
 8.5
 Cracker

 Storyline

 Edit

 Did you know

 Edit
 * Trivia
 The storyline was based on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse case. Unfortunately, Savile was already dead by the time the accusations were made.
 * Connections
 Featured in The South Bank Show: Jack Thorne (2019)

 User reviews 16

 Review
 Review
 Featured review
 9 / 10
 Exceptional.
 Doing a re-watch of visionary Marc Munden's filmography & "National Treasure" is still one of the most technically impressive shows Channel 4's ever made in its entire history; genuinely insane how high the production values look for a series which would've been nowhere near as expensive as it appears on screen. Boasts truly exceptional filmmaking & acts as an astonishing achievement for all the cast & crew involved.

 Writer & creator Jack Thorne turns out some of his strongest scripts & the direction (coupled with Ole Bratt Birkeland's stunning cinematography) elevates them even further. Each & every episode's edited to perfection, scored beautifully by Cristobal Tapia De Veer & the performances are outstanding - especially from Julie Walters, who truly shines here. Aged like fine wine.

 Seriously, does anyone do topical stuff better than Marc Munden? Can't think of one single superior alternative. Time after time, he tackles potentially controversial subject matter in such an audacious & unflinching way, without being exploitative / triggering. Strikes a phenomenal balance & remains respectful whilst doing justice to the horror of the subject matter featured. Remarkable.
 helpful • 4
 2
 * W011y4m5
 * Jul 3, 2022

 Top picks

 Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
 Sign in

 FAQ 18

 * How many seasons does National Treasure have? Powered by Alexa

 Details

 Edit
 * Release date
 + March 1, 2017 (United States)
 * Country of origin
 + United Kingdom
 * Official site
 + Hulu
 * Language
 + English
 * Also known as
 + Fallande legend
 * Filming locations
 + Leeds, West Yorkshire, England, UK
 * Production company
 + Channel 4 Television Corporation
 * See more company credits at IMDbPro

 Technical specs

 Edit
 * Runtime
 48 minutes
 * Color
 + Color
 * Sound mix
 + Stereo
 * Aspect ratio
 + 1.78 : 1

 Related news

 Contribute to this page

 Suggest an edit or add missing content
 Top Gap
 By what name was National Treasure (2016) officially released in India in English?
 Answer
 * See more gaps
 * Learn more about contributing
 Edit page Add episode

 More to explore

 List
 Staff Picks: What to Watch in April
 See our picks
 Photos
 The Latest (and Greatest) New Posters
 See the gallery
 List
 What We're Watching: Time Travel and Anime
 See the full list

 Recently viewed

 You have no recently viewed pages
 Get the IMDb app
 Sign in for more access Sign in for more access
 Follow IMDb on social
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Get the IMDb app
 For Android and iOS
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Help
 * Site Index
 * IMDbPro
 * Box Office Mojo
 * License IMDb Data
 * Press Room
 * Advertising
 * Jobs
 * Conditions of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Your Ads Privacy Choices

 © 1990-2024 by IMDb.com, Inc.

 Back to top
TV Mini Series  2016   TV-MA  48m                                                Videos                                Doing a re-watch of visionary Marc Munden's filmography &amp; "National Treasure" is still one of the most technically impressive shows Channel 4's ever made in its entire history; genuinely insane how high the production values look for a series which would've been nowhere near as expensive as it appears on screen. Boasts truly exceptional filmmaking &amp; acts as an astonishing achievement for all the cast &amp; crew involved. Writer &amp; creator Jack Thorne turns out some of his strongest scripts &amp; the direction (coupled with Ole Bratt Birkeland's stunning cinematography) elevates them even further. Each &amp; every episode's edited to perfection, scored beautifully by Cristobal Tapia De Veer &amp; the performances are outstanding - especially from Julie Walters, who truly shines here. Aged like fine wine. Seriously, does anyone do topical stuff better than Marc Munden? Can't think of one single superior alternative. Time after time, he tackles potentially controversial subject matter in such an audacious &amp; unflinching way, without being exploitative / triggering. Strikes a phenomenal balance &amp; remains respectful whilst doing justice to the horror of the subject matter featured. Remarkable.      W011y4m5  Jul 3, 2022                   Suggest an edit or add missing content        By what name was National Treasure (2016) officially released in India in English?  Answer               More to explore
National Treasure (TV Mini Series 2016) ⭐ 7.3 | Drama
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5571524/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12580982/
National Treasure: Edge of History (TV Series 2022– ) - IMDb
2022-12-14
None
<div><div><section><section><section><div><ul><li>TV Series</li><li><a href="/title/tt12580982/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_rdat">2022– </a></li><li><a href="/title/tt12580982/parentalguide/certificates?ref_=tt_ov_pg">TV-14</a></li><li>50m</li></ul></div><div><div><p></p><a href="/title/tt12580982/mediaviewer/rm3776121601/?ref_=tt_ov_i"></a></div><section><p>Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure... <a href="plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl">Read all</a>Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure.Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure.</p><li><p><a href="https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt12580982/?rf=cons_tt_atf&amp;ref_=cons_tt_atf">See production, box office &amp; company info</a></p></li></section></div></section></section><div><div><section><p><a href="/title/tt12580982/episodes?ref_=tt_eps_sm"><h3>Episodes10</h3></a></p></section><section><p><a href="/title/tt12580982/videogallery/?ref_=tt_vi_sm"><h3>Videos11</h3></a></p></section><div><hgroup><h3>More like this</h3></hgroup></div><section><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/review/tt12580982/add?bus=imdb&amp;return_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fclose_me&amp;site=web&amp;ref_=tt_urv_add">Review</a><div><div> <p>Bleh</p><div><p>Watched 2 episodes, so take this preliminary "review" with a grain of salt.</p><p>This show is very teenager-y with lots of conveniences and forced outcomes that don't particularly show anyone's cleverness. The story (so far) wasn't exceptionally interesting.. with puzzle-room-solving skills used on the real world by kids that have levels of parent distrust, while still chasing after them. It's certainly a bad sequel to what was a budget copy of Indiana Jones-type stories.. but more importantly to me, it's the fact that the tone doesn't mesh together with all the presented elements.. it's supposed to be serious/heavy/dangerous, but in a "Spy Kids" kind of way (or a better comparison would be like watching a 2000s "Disney Channel" series).</p><p>It might be good as a generic entry into a sea of forgettable content.. but with that title behind it? I can't see anything but disappointed fans.</p></div></div><div><ul><li><a href="/user/ur26579233/?ref_=tt_urv_usr">daisukereds</a></li><li>Dec 18, 2022</li></ul></div></div></section><section><div><hgroup><h3>Contribute to this page</h3></hgroup><p>Suggest an edit or add missing content</p></div><div><div><p></p></div><div><p>What was the official certification given to National Treasure: Edge of History (2022) in Brazil?</p><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/answers?pinnedQuestion=tt12580982.certificate.BR&amp;ref_=tt_ans_q">Answer</a></p></div></div><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/updates?ref_=tt_cn_edt&amp;edit=legacy%2Ftitle%2Ftt12580982%2F">Edit page</a><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/updates?ref_=tt_cn_eps&amp;update=episode&amp;parent=tt12580982">Add episode</a></p></section></div><div><section><p><hgroup><h3>More to explore</h3></hgroup></p></section></div></div></section></div></div>||||I|||| Menu
 Movies
 Release Calendar Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Browse Movies by Genre Top Box Office Showtimes & Tickets Movie News India Movie Spotlight
 TV Shows
 What's on TV & Streaming Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Browse TV Shows by Genre TV News India TV Spotlight
 Watch
 What to Watch Latest Trailers IMDb Originals IMDb Picks IMDb Podcasts
 Awards & Events
 Oscars SXSW Star Wars Celebration Cannes STARmeter Awards Awards Central Festival Central All Events
 Celebs
 Born Today Most Popular Celebs Most Popular Celebs Celebrity News
 Community
 Help Center Contributor Zone Polls
 For Industry Professionals
 All
 * All
 * Titles
 * TV Episodes
 * Celebs
 * Companies
 * Keywords
 * 
 Advanced Search
 Watchlist
 Sign In
 Sign In
 New Customer? Create account
 EN
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 SPONSORED
 Episode guide 10
 * Cast & crew
 * User reviews
 * Trivia
 IMDbPro
 All topics

 National Treasure: Edge of History

 * TV Series
 * 2022–
 * TV-14
 * 50m
 IMDb RATING
 5.6 / 10
 11K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 565
 25
 This video file cannot be played.(Error Code: 224003)
 Play trailer 1 :30
 11 Videos
 69 Photos
 Action Adventure Mystery

 Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure... Read all Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure. Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure.

 * Stars
 + Lisette Olivera
 + Zuri Reed
 + Antonio Cipriano
 * See production, box office & company info
 IMDb RATING
 5.6 / 10
 11K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 POPULARITY
 565
 25
 Top credits
 * Stars
 + Lisette Olivera
 + Zuri Reed
 + Antonio Cipriano
 Add to Watchlist
 Added by 15.5K users
 * 272 User reviews
 * 10 Critic reviews
 * See more at IMDbPro
 Enjoy unlimited streaming on Prime Video
 Start your 30-day free trial today

 Episodes 10

 Top-rated
 Wed, Feb 1, 2023
 * S1.E9
 * A Meeting with Salazar
 Liam finds a hidden cypher left behind by his grandpa, holding the truth about Salazar.
 7.4 /10 Rate
 Top-rated
 Wed, Dec 28, 2022
 * S1.E4
 * Charlotte
 For the first time ever, Jess finds herself in a puzzle-solving slump when she can't crack the clue found in the last episode. Her personal life isn't any less confusing as she tries to figure out if she and Liam have romantic feelings for each other. At the wake for Liam's grandpa, Jess and her friends meet famous treasure hunter Riley Poole (from the National Treasure movies) and enlist his help. Jess's puzzle-solving skills are put to the test when she and Riley get caught in a deadly trap.
 7.1 /10 Rate
 Browse episodes
 Top Top-rated 1 Season
 2 years20232022See all
 SPONSORED

 Videos 11

 Trailer 1:30
 Watch Official Trailer
 Trailer 0:18
 Watch Official Teaser
 Trailer 1:26
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History (Spanish/Spain Subtitled)
 Trailer 1:26
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History (Dutch Subtitled)
 Trailer 1:26
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History (French Subtitled)
 Trailer 1:26
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History (Latin America Market Subtitled)
 Trailer 1:26
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History (Italian Subtitled)
 Trailer 1:28
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History
 Trailer 0:18
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History Teaser (Australia)
 Trailer 0:18
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History Teaser
 Featurette 1:57
 Watch National Treasure: Edge Of History (Behind-The-Scenes Featurette)

 Photos 69

 SPONSORED

 Top cast

 Edit
 Lisette Olivera
 * Jess Valenzuela
 10 eps • 2022–2023 10 episodes • 2022–2023
 Zuri Reed
 * Tasha Rivers
 10 eps • 2022–2023 10 episodes • 2022–2023
 Antonio Cipriano
 * Oren Bradley
 10 eps • 2022–2023 10 episodes • 2022–2023
 Jordan Rodrigues
 * Ethan Chao
 10 eps • 2022–2023 10 episodes • 2022–2023
 Jake Austin Walker
 * Liam Sadusky
 10 eps • 2022–2023 10 episodes • 2022–2023
 Catherine Zeta-Jones
 * Billie Pearce
 10 eps • 2022–2023 10 episodes • 2022–2023
 Breeda Wool
 * Kacey Hasler …
 10 eps • 2022–2023 10 episodes • 2022–2023
 Lyndon Smith
 * Agent Ross
 9 eps • 2022–2023 9 episodes • 2022–2023
 Armando Riesco
 * Agent Hendricks …
 7 eps • 2022–2023 7 episodes • 2022–2023
 Darri Ingolfsson
 * Dario
 6 eps • 2022–2023 6 episodes • 2022–2023
 Salena Qureshi
 * Meena Mishra
 5 eps • 2022–2023 5 episodes • 2022–2023
 Dustin Ingram
 * Myles
 5 eps • 2022–2023 5 episodes • 2022–2023
 Tommy Savas
 * Dr. Zeke Hudson
 5 eps • 2022–2023 5 episodes • 2022–2023
 Joseph D. Reitman
 * The Bearded Man
 5 eps • 2022–2023 5 episodes • 2022–2023
 Jacob Vargas
 * Rafael Rios
 4 eps • 2023 4 episodes • 2023
 Alejandro Edda
 * Young Rafael …
 3 eps • 2022–2023 3 episodes • 2022–2023
 Patrick Brennan
 * Nate
 3 eps • 2022 3 episodes • 2022
 Kathleen York
 * Gina
 2 eps • 2022 2 episodes • 2022
 * All cast & crew
 * Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

 More like this

 6.5
 National Treasure: Book of Secrets
 Watch options
 6.9
 National Treasure
 Watch options
 7.4
 Lockwood & Co
 Watch options
 5.6
 Willow
 Watchlist
 6.2
 Mayfair Witches
 Watch options
 6.4
 Wolf Pack
 Watch options
 5.4
 Shotgun Wedding
 Watch options
 6.7
 Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
 Watch options
 7.4
 The Recruit
 Watch options
 7.6
 The Night Agent
 Watch options
 8.0
 Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan
 Watch options
 6.4
 That '90s Show
 Watch options
 SPONSORED

 Storyline

 Edit

 Did you know

 Edit
 * Trivia
 When they're looking through some of Sadusky's locked up possessions, the book Riley Poole published in "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is among the items, as is the Meerschaum pipe and Ben Franklin's "X-ray specs" from the original "National Treasure."
 * Connections
 Featured in AniMat's Crazy Cartoon Cast: The D23 Expo 2022 Special (2022)

 User reviews 272

 Review
 Review
 Featured review
 4 / 10
 Bleh
 Watched 2 episodes, so take this preliminary "review" with a grain of salt.

 This show is very teenager-y with lots of conveniences and forced outcomes that don't particularly show anyone's cleverness. The story (so far) wasn't exceptionally interesting.. with puzzle-room-solving skills used on the real world by kids that have levels of parent distrust, while still chasing after them. It's certainly a bad sequel to what was a budget copy of Indiana Jones-type stories.. but more importantly to me, it's the fact that the tone doesn't mesh together with all the presented elements.. it's supposed to be serious/heavy/dangerous, but in a "Spy Kids" kind of way (or a better comparison would be like watching a 2000s "Disney Channel" series).

 It might be good as a generic entry into a sea of forgettable content.. but with that title behind it? I can't see anything but disappointed fans.
 helpful • 51
 43
 * daisukereds
 * Dec 18, 2022

 Top picks

 Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
 Sign in

 Details

 Edit
 * Release date
 + December 14, 2022 (United States)
 * Country of origin
 + United States
 * Language
 + English
 * Also known as
 + Скарби нації: На краю історії
 * Filming locations
 + Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
 * Production companies
 + ABC Signature
 + Jerry Bruckheimer Television
 * See more company credits at IMDbPro

 Technical specs

 Edit
 * Runtime
 50 minutes
 * Color
 + Color
 * Sound mix
 + Stereo
 + Dolby Digital
 * Aspect ratio
 + 2.00:1

 Related news

 Contribute to this page

 Suggest an edit or add missing content
 Top Gap
 What was the official certification given to National Treasure: Edge of History (2022) in Brazil?
 Answer
 * See more gaps
 * Learn more about contributing
 Edit page Add episode

 More to explore

 SPONSORED
 Back to top

 Recently viewed

 Clear all
 National Treasure: Edge of History
 Scott Shepherd
 Flesh-Eating Krokodil
 SPONSORED
 Get the IMDb App
 Sign in for more access Sign in for more access
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Get the IMDb App
 * Help
 * Site Index
 * IMDbPro
 * Box Office Mojo
 * IMDb Developer
 * Press Room
 * Advertising
 * Jobs
 * Conditions of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Your Ads Privacy Choices

 © 1990-2023 by IMDb.com, Inc.

TV Series  2022–    TV-14  50m           Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure... Read allJess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure.Jess Valenzuela, a 20-year-old Dreamer, sets off on an exploration to discover the mystery of her family history, and, with the help of her friends, seeks to recover historical lost treasure.   See production, box office &amp; company info            Episodes10       Videos11      More like this    Review   Bleh  Watched 2 episodes, so take this preliminary "review" with a grain of salt. This show is very teenager-y with lots of conveniences and forced outcomes that don't particularly show anyone's cleverness. The story (so far) wasn't exceptionally interesting.. with puzzle-room-solving skills used on the real world by kids that have levels of parent distrust, while still chasing after them. It's certainly a bad sequel to what was a budget copy of Indiana Jones-type stories.. but more importantly to me, it's the fact that the tone doesn't mesh together with all the presented elements.. it's supposed to be serious/heavy/dangerous, but in a "Spy Kids" kind of way (or a better comparison would be like watching a 2000s "Disney Channel" series). It might be good as a generic entry into a sea of forgettable content.. but with that title behind it? I can't see anything but disappointed fans.      daisukereds  Dec 18, 2022        Contribute to this page  Suggest an edit or add missing content        What was the official certification given to National Treasure: Edge of History (2022) in Brazil?  Answer     Edit page Add episode        More to explore
National Treasure: Edge of History (TV Series 2022– ) - IMDb
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12580982/
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Stealing_Independence
Stealing Independence
2022-06-23
None
<div><div>
	<main>
	<div>
<div><p>“Huzzah! The time of British oppression is finally over!”— <a href="/wiki/Three_Dog">Three Dog</a>, after completion of the quest.</p></div>
<p><b>Stealing Independence</b> is a <i><a href="/wiki/Fallout_3">Fallout 3</a></i> <a href="/wiki/Quest">quest</a>, a <a href="/wiki/Fallout_3_achievements_and_trophies">PC and Xbox 360 achievement</a> and a PlayStation 3 trophy.
</p><p><a href="/wiki/Abraham_Washington">Abraham Washington</a> in <a href="/wiki/Rivet_City">Rivet City</a> wants the <a href="/wiki/Lone_Wanderer">Lone Wanderer</a> to retrieve the <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a> for him to display in the <a href="/wiki/Capitol_Preservation_Society">Capitol Preservation Society</a>.
</p>
<h2>Quick walkthrough</h2>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td>Side Quest: Stealing Independence </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td>Speak to <a href="/wiki/Abraham_Washington">Abraham Washington</a> at the <a href="/wiki/Capitol_Preservation_Society">Capitol Preservation Society</a> in <a href="/wiki/Rivet_City">Rivet City</a>. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td>Locate the <a href="/wiki/National_Archives">National Archives</a> and enter. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Defend the Rotunda. </td><td></td><td>Ignore the Rotunda. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Partner with <a href="/wiki/Sydney">Sydney</a>. </td><td></td><td>Ignore Sydney. </td><td></td><td>Kill Sydney. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Reward: <a href="/wiki/Sydney%27s_10mm_%22Ultra%22_SMG">Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG</a>. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Use the Rotunda elevator to reach the sub-basement. </td><td></td><td>Fight through the National Archives to get to the sub-basement. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Choose a path to fight through the Archives passageways. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Optional: Search side chambers. </td><td></td><td>Shut down turrets using <a href="/wiki/Repair_(Fallout_3)">Repair</a>. </td></tr><tr><td></td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td>Reward: <a href="/wiki/Magna_Carta">Magna Carta</a> and <a href="/wiki/Bill_of_Rights">Bill of Rights</a>. </td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Quick route: Repair the utility gate using <a href="/wiki/Science_(Fallout_3)">Science</a>. </td><td></td><td>Slower route: <a href="/wiki/Lockpick_(Fallout_3)">Lockpick</a> the metal door to bypass security. </td><td></td><td>Slowest route: Fight through the Archives passages. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Locate Button Gwinnett's chamber and speak to him. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Use <a href="/wiki/Speech_(Fallout_3)">Speech</a> to convince Gwinnett that the <a href="/wiki/Lone_Wanderer">Lone Wanderer</a> is Thomas Jefferson (neutral <a href="/wiki/Karma_(Fallout_3)">Karma</a>). </td><td></td><td>Kill Button Gwinnett (negative Karma). </td><td></td><td>Agree to help Gwinnett (positive Karma). </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Locate the <a href="/wiki/Ink_container">ink container</a> in the <a href="/wiki/Arlington_Library">Arlington Library</a>. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Tell Gwinnett to continue the good fight (positive Karma). </td><td></td><td>Tell Gwinnett to self-destruct (negative Karma). </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Reward: <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a> and <a href="/wiki/Button%27s_wig">Button's wig</a>. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td>Return to Abraham Washington in Rivet City. </td></tr><tr></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Reward: 400 <a href="/wiki/Bottle_cap_(Fallout_3)">caps</a> and <a href="/wiki/Schematics_-_railway_rifle">Schematics - railway rifle</a>. </td></tr><tr></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2>Detailed walkthrough</h2>
<h3>Acquiring the quest</h3>
<p>Talk to Abraham Washington in Rivet City or go directly to the <a href="/wiki/National_Archives">National Archives</a> and enter the rotunda on the first floor.
</p>
<h3>Encountering Sydney</h3>
<p>Upon entering the rotunda, the <a href="/wiki/Lone_Wanderer">Lone Wanderer</a> will find <a href="/wiki/Sydney">Sydney</a>, another treasure hunter sent by <a href="/wiki/Abraham_Washington">Abraham Washington</a> to get the <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a> but never returned.
</p><p>If one decides to help her by fending off the <a href="/wiki/Super_mutant_(Fallout_3)">super mutants</a>, they can take her on as a companion through to the end of the quest. However, if one declines to take her on as a companion, Sydney might appear later in a <a href="/wiki/Fallout_3_random_encounters#Bragging_Rights">random encounter</a>, "Seeking revenge for declining her offer."
</p><p>Sydney can be completely avoided. By entering the backdoor of the <a href="/wiki/National_Archives">National Archives</a>, one can bypass the rotunda and retrieve the Declaration of Independence. Upon returning to the rotunda, Sydney will not be there. The super mutant attack in the rotunda is still triggered, however. Alternatively, if one goes to the eastern door in the room with the terminals (before the rotunda), the super mutant attack will not occur.
</p>
<h3>Sydney's shortcut</h3>
<p>If one decides take Sydney with them, she will tell them that she has hacked a secret elevator that will get them very close to the Declaration's location. Interacting with the nearby terminal will trigger a secret elevator to appear. This will lead into the secure wing of the National Archives. Head north and one will have to fight/sneak past a number of robots. In the first room is a broken door that can be repaired with 67 <a href="/wiki/Science_(Fallout_3)">Science</a>. In this room is the power generator for the turrets guarding the various documents (Sydney will point this out if she is a companion), but it can only be activated with 60 <a href="/wiki/Repair_(Fallout_3)">Repair</a>. There are several Hard- and Very Hard-locked doors and significant gas leaks.
</p>
<h3>Encountering Button Gwinnett</h3>
<p>Regardless of which path one chooses, there will be a number of level-dependent robots, including <a href="/wiki/Protectron_(Fallout_3)">Protectrons</a>, <a href="/wiki/Mister_Gutsy_(Fallout_3)">Mister Gutsies</a>, <a href="/wiki/Sentry_bot_(Fallout_3)">sentry bots</a>, and the occasional <a href="/wiki/Robobrain_(Fallout_3)">robobrain</a>, as well as <a href="/wiki/Automated_turret_(Fallout_3)">Mark IV turrets</a> below that are hostile. The Lone Wanderer will eventually be approached by a robot that has been programmed as the second signer of the Declaration, <a href="/wiki/Button_Gwinnett_(robot)">Button Gwinnett</a>.
At this point, one can either:
</p>
<ul><li>Kill Gwinnett and have to fight off many more robots.</li>
<li>Agree to help Gwinnett by forging the <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a> with supplies from <a href="/wiki/Arlington_Library">Arlington Library</a> (aka "trick the Redcoats"). Once the Lone Wanderer gives the <a href="/wiki/Ink_container">ink container</a> to Gwinnett, he will create a <a href="/wiki/Forged_Declaration">forgery</a> for them to give to Abraham Washington. If one tells him to continue to guard the document or do whatever he likes, he will remain active and they will gain <a href="/wiki/Karma_(Fallout_3)">Karma</a>. If one gives him the order to self-destruct, they will lose Karma. One can still take the genuine Declaration and give both to Abraham.</li>
<li>Convince Gwinnett that they are Thomas Jefferson through a Speech check, which will allow them to simply grab the Declaration and leave without having to do anything more. However, he will deactivate himself, after which one can kill him without Karma loss or causing the turrets to turn hostile.</li>
<li>Order Gwinnett to shut down if they have the <a href="/wiki/Robotics_Expert_(Fallout_3)">Robotics Expert</a> perk.</li></ul>
<h3>Getaway</h3>
<p>At this point, the Lone Wanderer either has the real <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a>, a copy of it, or both.
</p><p>To get out, one can:
</p>
<ul><li>Go back the way they came, perhaps using the secret elevator again.</li>
<li>Go through the utility door to the left of Button (which leads to a room with <a href="/wiki/Protectron_(Fallout_3)">Protectron</a> containers) and then to the main floor.</li>
<li>Fight their way back up the stairs. If <a href="/wiki/Button_Gwinnett_(robot)">Button Gwinnett</a> is killed, there will be a number of robots trying to stop the Lone Wanderer in the basement. Or the door to the west of the room leads to an elevator exit, once the door is unlocked.
<ul><li>On their way up, they can find the <a href="/wiki/Bill_of_Rights">Bill of Rights</a> on one of the floors, in the fenced off area with a safe inside (next to a <a href="/wiki/Lying,_Congressional_Style_(Fallout_3)"><i>Lying, Congressional Style</i></a>). One can also find the <a href="/wiki/Magna_Carta">Magna Carta</a> directly across from where they found The Bill of Rights. The fenced-off area is protected by two Average-locked doors, and two Mark IV turrets. Both can be sold to <a href="/wiki/Abraham_Washington">Abraham Washington</a> (100 caps for the Bill of Rights, 75 for the Magna Carta, more with a Speech check).</li></ul></li></ul>
<h4>Sydney's quest</h4>
<p>After the delivery of the <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a> to <a href="/wiki/Abraham_Washington">Abraham Washington</a>, ask <a href="/wiki/Sydney">Sydney</a>, "So, whatever happened to your father?" Previously, this dialogue path was closed as she did not trust the <a href="/wiki/Lone_Wanderer">Lone Wanderer</a>. Now, she mentions her father and that he used to call her "Little Moonbeam." If one has found her father's body and holotape in the <a href="/wiki/Statesman_Hotel">Statesman Hotel</a>, the option to tell her about <a href="/wiki/A_note_from_Little_Moonbeam%27s_father">her father's message</a> will be available. She will reward the Lone Wanderer with <a href="/wiki/Sydney%27s_10mm_%22Ultra%22_SMG">Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG</a>.
</p>
<h2>Rewards</h2>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Schematics_-_railway_rifle">Schematics - railway rifle</a></li>
<li>400 bottle caps - If Sydney was not encountered, her offer was declined, or she did not survive.</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Sydney%27s_10mm_%22Ultra%22_SMG">Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG</a> - If one finishes her quest by giving the "My Little Moonbeam" holotape.</li></ul>
<h2>Quest stages</h2>
<div><table><tbody><tr><th>Stage</th><th>Status</th><th>Description</th></tr><tr><td>20</td><td> </td><td>Retrieve the Declaration of Independence from the National Archives.</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td> </td><td>Defend the Rotunda.</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td> </td><td>(Optional) Bring Button Gwinnett the ink.</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td></td><td>Return to Abraham Washington in Rivet City.</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<h2>Notes</h2>
<ul><li>When <a href="/wiki/Sydney">Sydney</a> is a companion, one can ask her at any time whether she has been hurt. If she says yes, they have the further option of giving her a stimpak, which she will use immediately.</li>
<li>If the Lone Wanderer has 7 Intelligence, they can say that Abraham is looking for the Declaration of Independence. With 8 Intelligence, however, the option is not offered.</li>
<li>Once one has passed the <a href="/wiki/Speech_(Fallout_3)">Speech</a> check, Button will also blow himself up if they call him a disgrace to Congress.</li>
<li>If one chooses to retrieve the ink from <a href="/wiki/Arlington_Library">Arlington Library</a>, after retrieving the forged copy from Button, they will gain access to the safes and the shortcut back to the ground floor of the <a href="/wiki/National_Archives">National Archives</a>.
<ul><li>This shortcut room contains the pods for the robots, including an inactive "Thomas Jefferson" robot and a backup robot that can have Jefferson's programming transferred to it. As mentioned in some of the computer bulletins, someone has hacked the voice of the robot, replacing it with a radio tuned in to GNR.</li>
<li>The broadcast is due to a pre-<a href="/wiki/Great_War">War</a> prank mentioned on some of the terminals in the building, which included swapping the voice software of the Protectron with a radio uplink and frequency scanning software. The recall signal does not function, but activating the Shutdown causes it to explode.</li></ul></li>
<li>Pick up the real Declaration only if one plans on delivering the real Declaration to Abraham Washington, because he will take either document (real or fake). If one gives Abraham Washington the fake copy, then return for the real thing, they will not be able to drop it (still a quest item). After this, the ink bottle becomes droppable. On the GOTY edition, it cannot be dropped, and it will be stuck with both the ink and the real copy of the Declaration, if one chooses to take both.
<ul><li>See <a href="#Bugs">bugs</a> for more information.</li></ul></li>
<li>Completing this quest by returning any form of the Declaration to <a href="/wiki/Abraham_Washington">Abraham Washington</a> will make <a href="/wiki/Three_Dog">Three Dog</a> of <a href="/wiki/Galaxy_News_Radio_(radio)">Galaxy News Radio</a> make mention of the Lone Wanderer in the news ("Huzzah! The time of British oppression is over!").</li>
<li>Remember to speak with <a href="/wiki/Sydney">Sydney</a> after delivering the Declaration—she does not remain in <a href="/wiki/Rivet_City">Rivet City</a> after the quest and will head to <a href="/wiki/Underworld">Underworld</a> via <a href="/wiki/Anacostia_Crossing_Station">Anacostia Crossing Station</a>, just north and to the right of Rivet City when exiting. She will be just inside the gate of the station.</li>
<li>If one passes a Speech check from Abraham Washington, he will tell them that he already sent a wastelander such as them to recover the Declaration. He continues to say that sacrifices must be made to preserve history.</li>
<li>One can get an extra 100 caps for the Bill of Rights and 75 caps for the Magna Carta. They are in two different safes along the long way in the sub-level. See the loot section above.</li>
<li>All three documents—the <a href="/wiki/Bill_of_Rights">Bill of Rights</a>, the <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a> and the <a href="/wiki/Magna_Carta">Magna Carta</a>—show up on the <a href="/wiki/Capitol_Preservation_Society">Capitol Preservation Society</a> wall of documents in golden frames after being sold to <a href="/wiki/Abraham_Washington">Abraham Washington</a>.</li>
<li>If one selects the "This is getting ridiculous" dialogue option, they can exit the strongroom and then re-enter to continue speaking with Button.</li>
<li>Early in development, the player character could additionally find the <a href="/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation">Emancipation Proclamation</a>, <a href="/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine">Monroe Doctrine</a>, <a href="/wiki/U.S._Declaration_of_War_on_China">U.S. Declaration of War on China</a> and the <a href="/wiki/U.S._Declaration_of_War_on_Germany">U.S. Declaration of War on Germany</a> in the Archives. In the final game, the only remnants of the documents are <a href="/wiki/Rivet_City_terminal_entries#Welcome_to_the_Capitol_Preservation_Society">entries</a> on the Capital Preservation Society terminal detailing what they contain and Washington's opinions on them.</li>
<li>Even with the <a href="/wiki/Robotics_Expert_(Fallout_3)">Robotics Expert</a> perk, there is no way to order or trick <a href="/wiki/Button_Gwinnett_(robot)">Button Gwinnett</a> to his alcove in the robotic bay for repair or transfer to <a href="/wiki/Protectron_(Fallout_3)#Backup_protection_unit">backup protection unit</a>.</li>
<li>If one uses the same glitch used to obtain <a href="/wiki/Colonel_Autumn%27s_10mm_pistol">Colonel Autumn's 10mm pistol</a> and coat, and with 100 lockpick, they can steal the Declaration of Independence with no Karma loss, and without Button becoming hostile.</li>
<li>The Bill of Rights is marked as a quest item and cannot be dropped. The Magna Carta, however, can be dropped at any time.</li>
<li>If one convinces Button to give them the Declaration, real or fake, hostilities with all robots and turrets in the National Archives will cease. However, Sydney will still attack the turrets on sight.</li></ul>
<h2>Bugs</h2>
<ul><li> For various reasons, usually related to Sydney's death (or resurrection by use of <a href="/wiki/Gamebryo_console_commands">console commands</a>), there will be no option to give Abraham Washington the Declaration of Independence. It is possible to complete this quest with Sydney alive or dead by entering a console command setstage 14ea2 100; however, the Declaration of Independence will remain in the player character's inventory — it cannot be sold, dropped or removed in any other way, as it is a quest item, though quest items do not actually weigh anything (despite what their weight actually reads). One can, however, remove it by using the console command player.removeitem 3a7f 1, or use the command setquestobject 3a7f 0 to remove the "quest item" flag. If instead, one has the <a href="/wiki/Forged_Declaration">Forged Declaration</a>, use player.removeitem 6b192 1 or setquestobject 6b192 0 correspondingly. If one has the <a href="/wiki/Ink_container">ink container</a> stuck in their inventory, use the corresponding console commands to remove it from the inventory (player.removeitem 3aa2 1) or remove the "quest item" flag (setquestobject 3aa2 0). <small><sup>[verified]</sup></small></li>
<li> One of the super mutants triggered by defending the rotunda causes glitches. It hangs out near the front door to the Archives. It is invisible and it cannot be harmed with guns, but it can be harmed with grenades or mines. It cannot harm the player character either. Companions may successfully kill it, but immediately upon its death, the game freezes. Leaving it alive keeps Sydney uncommunicative — she will just keep telling the Lone Wanderer that the muties are coming — so she cannot be taken along on the quest. It is possible to bypass this glitch and continue in the mission by entering the console command setstage 14ea2 50. <small><sup>[verified]</sup></small></li>
<li> A potential exploit becomes available if one has found the holotape from Sydney's father. The choice of asking her about her gun does not go away, so when one asks her about it, the option of asking about her father appears again. When chosen, they can once again give her the message to continue to get rewarded again and again. This is still not fixed as of <a href="/wiki/Fallout_3_patch_1.7">patch 1.7</a>.<small><sup>[verification overdue]</sup></small></li></ul>
<div><table><tbody><tr><th><div><p><a href="https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Template:Navbox_quests_FO3">v</a> · <a href="https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Template_talk:Navbox_quests_FO3">d</a> · <a href="https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Template:Navbox_quests_FO3?action=edit">e</a></p></div><div><p><a href="/wiki/Fallout_3_quests">Quests in <i>Fallout 3</i></a></p></div></th></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td><table><tbody><tr><td>Main quests</td><td></td><td><a href="/wiki/Baby_Steps">Baby Steps</a> · <a href="/wiki/Growing_Up_Fast">Growing Up Fast</a> · <a href="/wiki/Future_Imperfect">Future Imperfect</a> · <a href="/wiki/Escape!">Escape!</a> · <a href="/wiki/Following_in_His_Footsteps">Following in His Footsteps</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/Galaxy_News_Radio_(quest)">Galaxy News Radio</a></i> · <a href="/wiki/Scientific_Pursuits">Scientific Pursuits</a> · <a href="/wiki/Tranquility_Lane">Tranquility Lane</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Waters_of_Life">The Waters of Life</a> · <a href="/wiki/Picking_Up_the_Trail">Picking Up the Trail</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/Rescue_from_Paradise">Rescue from Paradise</a></i> · <a href="/wiki/Finding_the_Garden_of_Eden">Finding the Garden of Eden</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_American_Dream">The American Dream</a> · <a href="/wiki/Take_it_Back!">Take it Back!</a> · <a href="/wiki/Project_Impurity">Project Impurity</a></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td>Side quests</td><td></td><td><a href="/wiki/Agatha%27s_Song">Agatha's Song</a> · <a href="/wiki/Big_Trouble_in_Big_Town">Big Trouble in Big Town</a> · <a href="/wiki/Blood_Ties">Blood Ties</a> · <a href="/wiki/Head_of_State">Head of State</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Nuka-Cola_Challenge">The Nuka-Cola Challenge</a> · <a href="/wiki/Oasis_(quest)">Oasis</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Atom">The Power of the Atom</a> · <a href="/wiki/Reilly%27s_Rangers_(quest)">Reilly's Rangers</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Replicated_Man">The Replicated Man</a> · <strong>Stealing Independence</strong> · <a href="/wiki/Strictly_Business">Strictly Business</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Superhuman_Gambit">The Superhuman Gambit</a> · <a href="/wiki/Those!">Those!</a> · <a href="/wiki/Tenpenny_Tower_(quest)">Tenpenny Tower</a> · <a href="/wiki/Trouble_on_the_Homefront">Trouble on the Homefront</a> · <a href="/wiki/Wasteland_Survival_Guide_(quest)">Wasteland Survival Guide</a> · <a href="/wiki/You_Gotta_Shoot_%27Em_in_the_Head">You Gotta Shoot 'Em in the Head</a></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unmarked quests</td><td></td><td><a href="/wiki/A_Manhandled_Manservant">A Manhandled Manservant</a> · <a href="/wiki/A_Nice_Day_for_a_Right_Wedding">A Nice Day for a Right Wedding</a> · <a href="/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You">Happy Birthday to You</a> · <a href="/wiki/Church_Donations">Church Donations</a> · <a href="/wiki/Collecting_Holotags">Collecting Holotags</a> · <a href="/wiki/Council_Seat">Council Seat</a> · <a href="/wiki/Economics_of_Violence">Economics of Violence</a> · <a href="/wiki/Election_Day">Election Day</a> · <a href="/wiki/Fungus_Deal">Fungus Deal</a> · <a href="/wiki/Gallows_Humor">Gallows Humor</a> · <a href="/wiki/Geomapping_with_Reilly">Geomapping with Reilly</a> · <a href="/wiki/Grady%27s_Package">Grady's Package</a> · <a href="/wiki/Hired_Help">Hired Help</a> · <a href="/wiki/I_Want_to_Drink_Your_Blood">I Want to Drink Your Blood</a> · <a href="/wiki/Jiggs%27_Loot">Jiggs' Loot</a> · <a href="/wiki/Just_for_the_Taste_of_It">Just for the Taste of It</a> · <a href="/wiki/Keller_Family_Refuge">Keller Family Refuge</a> · <a href="/wiki/Leo%27s_Drug_Habit">Leo's Drug Habit</a> · <a href="/wiki/Lincoln%27s_Profit_Margins">Lincoln's Profit Margins</a> · <a href="/wiki/Merchant_Empire">Merchant Empire</a> · <a href="/wiki/Mississippi_Quantum_Pie_(quest)">Mississippi Quantum Pie</a> · <a href="/wiki/Murphy%27s_Bombing_Run">Murphy's Bombing Run</a> · <a href="/wiki/Nectar_Collecting_for_Fun_and_Profit">Nectar Collecting for Fun and Profit</a> · <a href="/wiki/Our_Little_Secret">Our Little Secret</a> · <a href="/wiki/Ryan_Brigg%27s_Wonder_Meat">Ryan Brigg's Wonder Meat</a> · <a href="/wiki/Searching_for_Cheryl">Searching for Cheryl</a> · <a href="/wiki/Slave_Hunt">Slave Hunt</a> · <a href="/wiki/Strictly_Profitable">Strictly Profitable</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Kid-Kidnapper">The Kid-Kidnapper</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Lost_Initiate">The Lost Initiate</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Outcast_Collection_Agent">The Outcast Collection Agent</a> · <a href="/wiki/This_Old_House">This Old House</a> · <a href="/wiki/Treatment">Treatment</a> · <a href="/wiki/Walter%27s_Scrap_Metal">Walter's Scrap Metal</a> · <a href="/wiki/Water_Beggars">Water Beggars</a> · <a href="/wiki/Yearning_for_Learning">Yearning for Learning</a> · <a href="/wiki/Zip%27s_Nuka_Fix">Zip's Nuka Fix</a></td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr><td><a href="/wiki/Fallout_3_add-ons">Add-on</a> quests</td><td></td><td><i><a href="/wiki/Operation:_Anchorage_(add-on)">Operation: Anchorage</a></i></td><td></td><td><a href="/wiki/Aiding_the_Outcasts">Aiding the Outcasts</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Guns_of_Anchorage">The Guns of Anchorage</a> · <a href="/wiki/Paving_the_Way">Paving the Way</a> · <a href="/wiki/Operation:_Anchorage!_(quest)">Operation: Anchorage!</a></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td><i><a href="/wiki/The_Pitt_(add-on)">The Pitt</a></i></td><td></td><td><a href="/wiki/Free_Labor">Free Labor</a> · <a href="/wiki/Into_The_Pitt">Into The Pitt</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/Mill_Worker">Mill Worker</a></i> · <i><a href="/wiki/Toys_for_Tots">Toys for Tots</a></i> · <a href="/wiki/Unsafe_Working_Conditions">Unsafe Working Conditions</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/Wild_Bill%27s_Last_Stand">Wild Bill's Last Stand</a></i> ·<i> <a href="/wiki/Slave_Snitch">Slave Snitch</a></i></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td><i><a href="/wiki/Broken_Steel">Broken Steel</a></i></td><td></td><td><i><a href="/wiki/The_Sorrowful_Suitor">The Sorrowful Suitor</a></i> · <i><a href="/wiki/Blood_Brotherhood">Blood Brotherhood</a></i> · <a href="/wiki/Death_From_Above">Death From Above</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/Getting_Ready_for_Prime_Time">Getting Ready for Prime Time</a></i> · <a href="/wiki/Shock_Value">Shock Value</a> · <a href="/wiki/Who_Dares_Wins">Who Dares Wins</a> · <a href="/wiki/Holy_Water_(quest)">Holy Water</a> · <a href="/wiki/Protecting_the_Water_Way">Protecting the Water Way</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Amazing_Aqua_Cura!">The Amazing Aqua Cura!</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/Wastelander_Water_Request">Wastelander Water Request</a></i></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td><i><a href="/wiki/Point_Lookout_(add-on)">Point Lookout</a></i></td><td></td><td><a href="/wiki/The_Local_Flavor">The Local Flavor</a>  · <a href="/wiki/Walking_with_Spirits">Walking with Spirits</a> · <a href="/wiki/Hearing_Voices">Hearing Voices</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/Tailing_the_Tomboy">Tailing the Tomboy</a></i> · <a href="/wiki/Thought_Control">Thought Control</a> · <a href="/wiki/A_Meeting_of_the_Minds">A Meeting of the Minds</a> · <a href="/wiki/A_Spoonful_of_Whiskey">A Spoonful of Whiskey</a> · <a href="/wiki/An_Antique_Land">An Antique Land</a> · <a href="/wiki/Plik%27s_Safari">Plik's Safari</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Dark_Heart_of_Blackhall">The Dark Heart of Blackhall</a> · <a href="/wiki/The_Velvet_Curtain">The Velvet Curtain</a></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td><i><a href="/wiki/Mothership_Zeta_(add-on)">Mothership Zeta</a></i></td><td></td><td><a href="/wiki/Not_of_This_World">Not of This World</a> · <a href="/wiki/Among_the_Stars">Among the Stars</a> · <a href="/wiki/This_Galaxy_Ain%27t_Big_Enough...">This Galaxy Ain't Big Enough...</a> · <i><a href="/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zeta">The Legend of Zeta</a></i></td></tr></tbody></table><table></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
</div>
	</main>
	</div>||||I|||| Fallout Wiki
 * Explore
 + Main Page
 + Discuss
 + All Pages
 + Community
 + Interactive Maps
 + Recent Blog Posts
 * Fallout games
 + Classic games
 o Fallout
 o Fallout 2
 o Fallout Tactics
 + Fallout 3
 o Add-ons (DLC)
 o Characters
 o Companions
 o Creatures
 o Factions
 o Items
 o Locations
 o Quests
 o Robots and computers
 o SPECIAL
 + Fallout: New Vegas
 o Add-ons (DLC)
 o Characters
 o Companions
 o Creatures
 o Factions
 o Items
 o Locations
 o Quests
 o Robots and computers
 o SPECIAL
 + Fallout 4
 o Add-ons (DLC)
 o Characters
 o Companions
 o Creatures
 o Factions
 o Items
 o Locations
 o Quests
 o Robots and computers
 o SPECIAL
 + Other games
 o Fallout: The Board Game
 o Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel
 o Fallout Shelter
 - Characters
 - FAQ
 - Outfits
 - Quests
 - Resources
 - Rooms
 - Weapons
 o Fallout: Wasteland Warfare
 + Canceled games
 o Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel 2
 o Fallout Pen and Paper d20
 o Fallout Tactics 2
 o Van Buren
 * Fallout 76
 + Atomic Shop
 o Apparel
 o Bundles
 o C.A.M.P.
 o Emotes
 o Icons
 o Photomode
 o Seasons
 o Skins
 o Styles
 o Utility
 + Updates
 o Nuka-World on Tour
 o Expeditions: The Pitt
 o Test Your Metal
 o Invaders from Beyond
 o Night of the Moth
 o Fallout Worlds
 o Steel Reign
 o Locked & Loaded
 o Steel Dawn
 o One Wasteland For All
 + Characters
 o Allies
 o Creatures and robots
 o Factions
 o Vendors
 + Items
 o Ammunition
 o Apparel and armor
 o C.A.M.P. and world objects
 o Food/drink and aid
 o Holotapes
 o Mods
 o Notes
 o Plans
 o Power armor
 o Weapons
 + Locations
 o Ash Heap
 o Cranberry Bog
 o Savage Divide
 o The Forest
 o The Mire
 o Toxic Valley
 o The Pitt
 + Quests
 o Challenges
 o Community events
 o Daily Ops
 o Daily quests
 o Events
 o Expeditions
 o Main quests
 o Random encounters
 o Reputation
 o Side quests
 + Gameplay
 o Condition and effects
 o Crafting
 o Currency
 o Damage
 o Legendary effects
 o Legendary perks
 o Multiplayer
 o Perks
 o SPECIAL
 o Workshop mode
 * Community
 + Welcome hub
 + Forum
 o Wiki discussion
 o Wiki proposal votes
 o User rights requests
 o Meeting of the Minds
 + Resources
 + Help
 o Nukastaff
 o Account management
 o Discord
 o Vault Academy
 + Policies
 o Administration
 o Article layout
 o Canon policy
 o Content policy
 o Discussions forum
 o Reference format
 o User conduct
 + Projects
 o Suggested merge and splits
 o Template headquarters
 FANDOM
 Home Fan Central BETA Games Anime Movies TV Video
 Wikis
 * Explore Wikis
 * Community Central
 Start a Wiki
 Don't have an account?
 Register Sign In
 Advertisement
 Nukapedia Fallout Wiki
 43,318
 pages
 * Explore
 + Main Page
 + Discuss
 + All Pages
 + Community
 + Interactive Maps
 + Recent Blog Posts
 * Fallout games
 + Classic games
 o Fallout
 o Fallout 2
 o Fallout Tactics
 + Fallout 3
 o Add-ons (DLC)
 o Characters
 o Companions
 o Creatures
 o Factions
 o Items
 o Locations
 o Quests
 o Robots and computers
 o SPECIAL
 + Fallout: New Vegas
 o Add-ons (DLC)
 o Characters
 o Companions
 o Creatures
 o Factions
 o Items
 o Locations
 o Quests
 o Robots and computers
 o SPECIAL
 + Fallout 4
 o Add-ons (DLC)
 o Characters
 o Companions
 o Creatures
 o Factions
 o Items
 o Locations
 o Quests
 o Robots and computers
 o SPECIAL
 + Other games
 o Fallout: The Board Game
 o Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel
 o Fallout Shelter
 - Characters
 - FAQ
 - Outfits
 - Quests
 - Resources
 - Rooms
 - Weapons
 o Fallout: Wasteland Warfare
 + Canceled games
 o Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel 2
 o Fallout Pen and Paper d20
 o Fallout Tactics 2
 o Van Buren
 * Fallout 76
 + Atomic Shop
 o Apparel
 o Bundles
 o C.A.M.P.
 o Emotes
 o Icons
 o Photomode
 o Seasons
 o Skins
 o Styles
 o Utility
 + Updates
 o Nuka-World on Tour
 o Expeditions: The Pitt
 o Test Your Metal
 o Invaders from Beyond
 o Night of the Moth
 o Fallout Worlds
 o Steel Reign
 o Locked & Loaded
 o Steel Dawn
 o One Wasteland For All
 + Characters
 o Allies
 o Creatures and robots
 o Factions
 o Vendors
 + Items
 o Ammunition
 o Apparel and armor
 o C.A.M.P. and world objects
 o Food/drink and aid
 o Holotapes
 o Mods
 o Notes
 o Plans
 o Power armor
 o Weapons
 + Locations
 o Ash Heap
 o Cranberry Bog
 o Savage Divide
 o The Forest
 o The Mire
 o Toxic Valley
 o The Pitt
 + Quests
 o Challenges
 o Community events
 o Daily Ops
 o Daily quests
 o Events
 o Expeditions
 o Main quests
 o Random encounters
 o Reputation
 o Side quests
 + Gameplay
 o Condition and effects
 o Crafting
 o Currency
 o Damage
 o Legendary effects
 o Legendary perks
 o Multiplayer
 o Perks
 o SPECIAL
 o Workshop mode
 * Community
 + Welcome hub
 + Forum
 o Wiki discussion
 o Wiki proposal votes
 o User rights requests
 o Meeting of the Minds
 + Resources
 + Help
 o Nukastaff
 o Account management
 o Discord
 o Vault Academy
 + Policies
 o Administration
 o Article layout
 o Canon policy
 o Content policy
 o Discussions forum
 o Reference format
 o User conduct
 + Projects
 o Suggested merge and splits
 o Template headquarters
 in: Bug verification overdue, Fallout 3 quests, Fallout 3 achievements and trophies
 English
 * Deutsch
 * Español
 * Русский
 * Українська

 Stealing Independence

 View source
 * History
 * Talk (75)

 Fallout 3 side quest

 Stealing Independence

 * Image
 * Icon

 Button Gwinnett

 Location

 Rivet City
 National Archives
 Arlington Library

 Given by

 Abraham Washington
 Sydney

 Rewards

 400 caps (if done alone)
 330 XP
 Schematics - railway rifle
 Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG (optional)

 Actors

 Button Gwinnett

 Technical

 Editor ID

 MS15

 Form ID

 00014EA2

 Fallout 3 achievement

 Stealing Independence

 * Trophy

 Complete Stealing Independence
 Bronze 20
 

 “ Huzzah! The time of British oppression is finally over! ” — Three Dog , after completion of the quest.

 https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/File:Fo3_ThreeDog_Huzzah.ogg

 Stealing Independence is a Fallout 3 quest, a PC and Xbox 360 achievement and a PlayStation 3 trophy.

 Abraham Washington in Rivet City wants the Lone Wanderer to retrieve the Declaration of Independence for him to display in the Capitol Preservation Society.

 Contents

 * 1 Quick walkthrough
 * 2 Detailed walkthrough
 + 2.1 Acquiring the quest
 + 2.2 Encountering Sydney
 + 2.3 Sydney's shortcut
 + 2.4 Encountering Button Gwinnett
 + 2.5 Getaway
 o 2.5.1 Sydney's quest
 * 3 Rewards
 * 4 Quest stages
 * 5 Notes
 * 6 Bugs

 Quick walkthrough

 Side Quest: Stealing Independence 
 
       
 
 Speak to Abraham Washington at the Capitol Preservation Society in Rivet City. 
 
       
 
 Locate the National Archives and enter. 
 
       
    
 Defend the Rotunda.  Ignore the Rotunda. 
 
       
     
 Partner with Sydney.  Ignore Sydney. Kill Sydney. 
 
       
 
      Reward: Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG.
 
       
    
 Use the Rotunda elevator to reach the sub-basement. Fight through the National Archives to get to the sub-basement.
 
       
    
 Choose a path to fight through the Archives passageways. 
 
       
    
 Optional: Search side chambers. Shut down turrets using Repair. 
  
       
 
 Reward: Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.   
 
       
      
 Quick route: Repair the utility gate using Science. Slower route: Lockpick the metal door to bypass security. Slowest route: Fight through the Archives passages.
 
       
     
 Locate Button Gwinnett's chamber and speak to him. 
 
       
      
 Use Speech to convince Gwinnett that the Lone Wanderer is Thomas Jefferson (neutral Karma). Kill Button Gwinnett (negative Karma). Agree to help Gwinnett (positive Karma). 
 
       
 
    Locate the ink container in the Arlington Library. 
 
       
    
    Tell Gwinnett to continue the good fight (positive Karma). Tell Gwinnett to self-destruct (negative Karma).
 
       
      
 Reward: Declaration of Independence and Button's wig. 
 
       
 
 Return to Abraham Washington in Rivet City. 
 
       
    
 Reward: 400 caps and Schematics - railway rifle. 
 
 

 Detailed walkthrough

 Acquiring the quest

 Talk to Abraham Washington in Rivet City or go directly to the National Archives and enter the rotunda on the first floor.

 Encountering Sydney

 Upon entering the rotunda, the Lone Wanderer will find Sydney, another treasure hunter sent by Abraham Washington to get the Declaration of Independence but never returned.

 If one decides to help her by fending off the super mutants, they can take her on as a companion through to the end of the quest. However, if one declines to take her on as a companion, Sydney might appear later in a random encounter, "Seeking revenge for declining her offer."

 Sydney can be completely avoided. By entering the backdoor of the National Archives, one can bypass the rotunda and retrieve the Declaration of Independence. Upon returning to the rotunda, Sydney will not be there. The super mutant attack in the rotunda is still triggered, however. Alternatively, if one goes to the eastern door in the room with the terminals (before the rotunda), the super mutant attack will not occur.

 Sydney's shortcut

 If one decides take Sydney with them, she will tell them that she has hacked a secret elevator that will get them very close to the Declaration's location. Interacting with the nearby terminal will trigger a secret elevator to appear. This will lead into the secure wing of the National Archives. Head north and one will have to fight/sneak past a number of robots. In the first room is a broken door that can be repaired with 67 Science. In this room is the power generator for the turrets guarding the various documents (Sydney will point this out if she is a companion), but it can only be activated with 60 Repair. There are several Hard- and Very Hard-locked doors and significant gas leaks.

 Encountering Button Gwinnett

 Regardless of which path one chooses, there will be a number of level-dependent robots, including Protectrons, Mister Gutsies, sentry bots, and the occasional robobrain, as well as Mark IV turrets below that are hostile. The Lone Wanderer will eventually be approached by a robot that has been programmed as the second signer of the Declaration, Button Gwinnett. At this point, one can either:

 * Kill Gwinnett and have to fight off many more robots.
 * Agree to help Gwinnett by forging the Declaration of Independence with supplies from Arlington Library (aka "trick the Redcoats"). Once the Lone Wanderer gives the ink container to Gwinnett, he will create a forgery for them to give to Abraham Washington. If one tells him to continue to guard the document or do whatever he likes, he will remain active and they will gain Karma. If one gives him the order to self-destruct, they will lose Karma. One can still take the genuine Declaration and give both to Abraham.
 * Convince Gwinnett that they are Thomas Jefferson through a Speech check, which will allow them to simply grab the Declaration and leave without having to do anything more. However, he will deactivate himself, after which one can kill him without Karma loss or causing the turrets to turn hostile.
 * Order Gwinnett to shut down if they have the Robotics Expert perk.

 Getaway

 At this point, the Lone Wanderer either has the real Declaration of Independence, a copy of it, or both.

 To get out, one can:

 * Go back the way they came, perhaps using the secret elevator again.
 * Go through the utility door to the left of Button (which leads to a room with Protectron containers) and then to the main floor.
 * Fight their way back up the stairs. If Button Gwinnett is killed, there will be a number of robots trying to stop the Lone Wanderer in the basement. Or the door to the west of the room leads to an elevator exit, once the door is unlocked.
 + On their way up, they can find the Bill of Rights on one of the floors, in the fenced off area with a safe inside (next to a Lying, Congressional Style). One can also find the Magna Carta directly across from where they found The Bill of Rights. The fenced-off area is protected by two Average-locked doors, and two Mark IV turrets. Both can be sold to Abraham Washington (100 caps for the Bill of Rights, 75 for the Magna Carta, more with a Speech check).

 Sydney's quest

 After the delivery of the Declaration of Independence to Abraham Washington, ask Sydney, "So, whatever happened to your father?" Previously, this dialogue path was closed as she did not trust the Lone Wanderer. Now, she mentions her father and that he used to call her "Little Moonbeam." If one has found her father's body and holotape in the Statesman Hotel, the option to tell her about her father's message will be available. She will reward the Lone Wanderer with Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG.

 Rewards

 * Schematics - railway rifle
 * 400 bottle caps - If Sydney was not encountered, her offer was declined, or she did not survive.
 * Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG - If one finishes her quest by giving the "My Little Moonbeam" holotape.

 Quest stages

 Stage Status Description 
 20 Retrieve the Declaration of Independence from the National Archives.
 30 Defend the Rotunda. 
 50 (Optional) Bring Button Gwinnett the ink. 
 60 Return to Abraham Washington in Rivet City. 
 

 Notes

 * When Sydney is a companion, one can ask her at any time whether she has been hurt. If she says yes, they have the further option of giving her a stimpak, which she will use immediately.
 * If the Lone Wanderer has 7 Intelligence, they can say that Abraham is looking for the Declaration of Independence. With 8 Intelligence, however, the option is not offered.
 * Once one has passed the Speech check, Button will also blow himself up if they call him a disgrace to Congress.
 * If one chooses to retrieve the ink from Arlington Library, after retrieving the forged copy from Button, they will gain access to the safes and the shortcut back to the ground floor of the National Archives.
 + This shortcut room contains the pods for the robots, including an inactive "Thomas Jefferson" robot and a backup robot that can have Jefferson's programming transferred to it. As mentioned in some of the computer bulletins, someone has hacked the voice of the robot, replacing it with a radio tuned in to GNR.
 + The broadcast is due to a pre-War prank mentioned on some of the terminals in the building, which included swapping the voice software of the Protectron with a radio uplink and frequency scanning software. The recall signal does not function, but activating the Shutdown causes it to explode.
 * Pick up the real Declaration only if one plans on delivering the real Declaration to Abraham Washington, because he will take either document (real or fake). If one gives Abraham Washington the fake copy, then return for the real thing, they will not be able to drop it (still a quest item). After this, the ink bottle becomes droppable. On the GOTY edition, it cannot be dropped, and it will be stuck with both the ink and the real copy of the Declaration, if one chooses to take both.
 + See bugs for more information.
 * Completing this quest by returning any form of the Declaration to Abraham Washington will make Three Dog of Galaxy News Radio make mention of the Lone Wanderer in the news ("Huzzah! The time of British oppression is over!").
 * Remember to speak with Sydney after delivering the Declaration—she does not remain in Rivet City after the quest and will head to Underworld via Anacostia Crossing Station, just north and to the right of Rivet City when exiting. She will be just inside the gate of the station.
 * If one passes a Speech check from Abraham Washington, he will tell them that he already sent a wastelander such as them to recover the Declaration. He continues to say that sacrifices must be made to preserve history.
 * One can get an extra 100 caps for the Bill of Rights and 75 caps for the Magna Carta. They are in two different safes along the long way in the sub-level. See the loot section above.
 * All three documents—the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta—show up on the Capitol Preservation Society wall of documents in golden frames after being sold to Abraham Washington.
 * If one selects the "This is getting ridiculous" dialogue option, they can exit the strongroom and then re-enter to continue speaking with Button.
 * Early in development, the player character could additionally find the Emancipation Proclamation, Monroe Doctrine, U.S. Declaration of War on China and the U.S. Declaration of War on Germany in the Archives. In the final game, the only remnants of the documents are entries on the Capital Preservation Society terminal detailing what they contain and Washington's opinions on them.
 * Even with the Robotics Expert perk, there is no way to order or trick Button Gwinnett to his alcove in the robotic bay for repair or transfer to backup protection unit.
 * If one uses the same glitch used to obtain Colonel Autumn's 10mm pistol and coat, and with 100 lockpick, they can steal the Declaration of Independence with no Karma loss, and without Button becoming hostile.
 * The Bill of Rights is marked as a quest item and cannot be dropped. The Magna Carta, however, can be dropped at any time.
 * If one convinces Button to give them the Declaration, real or fake, hostilities with all robots and turrets in the National Archives will cease. However, Sydney will still attack the turrets on sight.

 Bugs

 * For various reasons, usually related to Sydney's death (or resurrection by use of console commands), there will be no option to give Abraham Washington the Declaration of Independence. It is possible to complete this quest with Sydney alive or dead by entering a console command setstage 14ea2 100 ; however, the Declaration of Independence will remain in the player character's inventory — it cannot be sold, dropped or removed in any other way, as it is a quest item, though quest items do not actually weigh anything (despite what their weight actually reads). One can, however, remove it by using the console command player.removeitem 3a7f 1 , or use the command setquestobject 3a7f 0 to remove the "quest item" flag. If instead, one has the Forged Declaration, use player.removeitem 6b192 1 or setquestobject 6b192 0 correspondingly. If one has the ink container stuck in their inventory, use the corresponding console commands to remove it from the inventory ( player.removeitem 3aa2 1 ) or remove the "quest item" flag ( setquestobject 3aa2 0 ). [verified]
 * One of the super mutants triggered by defending the rotunda causes glitches. It hangs out near the front door to the Archives. It is invisible and it cannot be harmed with guns, but it can be harmed with grenades or mines. It cannot harm the player character either. Companions may successfully kill it, but immediately upon its death, the game freezes. Leaving it alive keeps Sydney uncommunicative — she will just keep telling the Lone Wanderer that the muties are coming — so she cannot be taken along on the quest. It is possible to bypass this glitch and continue in the mission by entering the console command setstage 14ea2 50 . [verified]
 * A potential exploit becomes available if one has found the holotape from Sydney's father. The choice of asking her about her gun does not go away, so when one asks her about it, the option of asking about her father appears again. When chosen, they can once again give her the message to continue to get rewarded again and again. This is still not fixed as of patch 1.7. [verification overdue]
 v · d · e             
 Quests in Fallout 3             
             
 Main quests Baby Steps · Growing Up Fast · Future Imperfect · Escape! · Following in His Footsteps · Galaxy News Radio · Scientific Pursuits · Tranquility Lane · The Waters of Life · Picking Up the Trail · Rescue from Paradise · Finding the Garden of Eden · The American Dream · Take it Back! · Project Impurity        
             
 Side quests Agatha's Song · Big Trouble in Big Town · Blood Ties · Head of State · The Nuka-Cola Challenge · Oasis · The Power of the Atom · Reilly's Rangers · The Replicated Man · Stealing Independence · Strictly Business · The Superhuman Gambit · Those! · Tenpenny Tower · Trouble on the Homefront · Wasteland Survival Guide · You Gotta Shoot 'Em in the Head       
             
 Unmarked quests A Manhandled Manservant · A Nice Day for a Right Wedding · Happy Birthday to You · Church Donations · Collecting Holotags · Council Seat · Economics of Violence · Election Day · Fungus Deal · Gallows Humor · Geomapping with Reilly · Grady's Package · Hired Help · I Want to Drink Your Blood · Jiggs' Loot · Just for the Taste of It · Keller Family Refuge · Leo's Drug Habit · Lincoln's Profit Margins · Merchant Empire · Mississippi Quantum Pie · Murphy's Bombing Run · Nectar Collecting for Fun and Profit · Our Little Secret · Ryan Brigg's Wonder Meat · Searching for Cheryl · Slave Hunt · Strictly Profitable · The Kid-Kidnapper · The Lost Initiate · The Outcast Collection Agent · This Old House · Treatment · Walter's Scrap Metal · Water Beggars · Yearning for Learning · Zip's Nuka Fix
             
 Add-on quests Operation: Anchorage    Aiding the Outcasts · The Guns of Anchorage · Paving the Way · Operation: Anchorage!        
             
 The Pitt Free Labor · Into The Pitt · Mill Worker · Toys for Tots · Unsafe Working Conditions · Wild Bill's Last Stand · Slave Snitch           
             
 Broken Steel The Sorrowful Suitor · Blood Brotherhood · Death From Above · Getting Ready for Prime Time · Shock Value · Who Dares Wins · Holy Water · Protecting the Water Way · The Amazing Aqua Cura! · Wastelander Water Request          
             
 Point Lookout The Local Flavor · Walking with Spirits · Hearing Voices · Tailing the Tomboy · Thought Control · A Meeting of the Minds · A Spoonful of Whiskey · An Antique Land · Plik's Safari · The Dark Heart of Blackhall · The Velvet Curtain         
             
 Mothership Zeta Not of This World · Among the Stars · This Galaxy Ain't Big Enough... · The Legend of Zeta           
             
             
             
             
 
 Categories
 * Categories :
 * Bug verification overdue
 * Fallout 3 quests
 * Fallout 3 achievements and trophies
 Languages
 Deutsch Español Русский Українська
 Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
 Facts
 ... more about "Stealing Independence"
 RDF feed
 Has platform
 PC +
 Advertisement

 Fan Feed

 More Fallout Wiki
 * 1 Fallout: New Vegas weapons
 * 2 Fallout: New Vegas console commands
 * 3 Fallout 4 armor and clothing
 Explore Wikis
 * Universal Conquest Wiki
 * Let's Go Luna! Wiki
 * Club 57 Wiki

 Explore properties

 * Fandom
 * Muthead
 * Futhead
 * Fanatical

 Follow Us

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

 Overview

 * What is Fandom?
 * About
 * Careers
 * Press
 * Contact
 * Terms of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Global Sitemap
 * Local Sitemap

 Community

 * Community Central
 * Support
 * Help
 * Do Not Sell My Info

 Advertise

 * Media Kit
 * Fandomatic
 * Contact

 Fandom Apps

 Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat.
 * 
 * 
 Fallout Wiki is a FANDOM Games Community.
 View Mobile Site
 Follow on IG TikTok Join Fan Lab
“Huzzah! The time of British oppression is finally over!”— Three Dog, after completion of the quest. 
 Stealing Independence is a  Fallout 3  quest, a PC and Xbox 360 achievement and a PlayStation 3 trophy.
  Abraham Washington in Rivet City wants the Lone Wanderer to retrieve the Declaration of Independence for him to display in the Capitol Preservation Society.
Quick walkthrough
  Side Quest: Stealing Independence    
                                   
 Speak to Abraham Washington at the Capitol Preservation Society in Rivet City.    
                                   
 Locate the National Archives and enter.    
                                                           
 Defend the Rotunda.    Ignore the Rotunda.    
                                                               
 Partner with Sydney.    Ignore Sydney.    Kill Sydney.    
                                       
                             Reward: Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG.    
                                                   
 Use the Rotunda elevator to reach the sub-basement.    Fight through the National Archives to get to the sub-basement.    
                                                         
 Choose a path to fight through the Archives passageways.    
                                                           
 Optional: Search side chambers.    Shut down turrets using Repair.      
                                     
 Reward: Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.                      
                                                                   
 Quick route: Repair the utility gate using Science.    Slower route: Lockpick the metal door to bypass security.    Slowest route: Fight through the Archives passages.    
                                                               
 Locate Button Gwinnett's chamber and speak to him.    
                                                                 
 Use Speech to convince Gwinnett that the Lone Wanderer is Thomas Jefferson (neutral Karma).    Kill Button Gwinnett (negative Karma).    Agree to help Gwinnett (positive Karma).    
                                       
                     Locate the ink container in the Arlington Library.    
                                                       
                     Tell Gwinnett to continue the good fight (positive Karma).    Tell Gwinnett to self-destruct (negative Karma).    
                                                                   
 Reward: Declaration of Independence and Button's wig.    
                                   
 Return to Abraham Washington in Rivet City.    
                                                           
 Reward: 400 caps and Schematics - railway rifle.    
 
Detailed walkthrough
Acquiring the quest
Talk to Abraham Washington in Rivet City or go directly to the National Archives and enter the rotunda on the first floor.
Encountering Sydney
Upon entering the rotunda, the Lone Wanderer will find Sydney, another treasure hunter sent by Abraham Washington to get the Declaration of Independence but never returned.
 If one decides to help her by fending off the super mutants, they can take her on as a companion through to the end of the quest. However, if one declines to take her on as a companion, Sydney might appear later in a random encounter, "Seeking revenge for declining her offer."
 Sydney can be completely avoided. By entering the backdoor of the National Archives, one can bypass the rotunda and retrieve the Declaration of Independence. Upon returning to the rotunda, Sydney will not be there. The super mutant attack in the rotunda is still triggered, however. Alternatively, if one goes to the eastern door in the room with the terminals (before the rotunda), the super mutant attack will not occur.
Sydney's shortcut
If one decides take Sydney with them, she will tell them that she has hacked a secret elevator that will get them very close to the Declaration's location. Interacting with the nearby terminal will trigger a secret elevator to appear. This will lead into the secure wing of the National Archives. Head north and one will have to fight/sneak past a number of robots. In the first room is a broken door that can be repaired with 67 Science. In this room is the power generator for the turrets guarding the various documents (Sydney will point this out if she is a companion), but it can only be activated with 60 Repair. There are several Hard- and Very Hard-locked doors and significant gas leaks.
Encountering Button Gwinnett
Regardless of which path one chooses, there will be a number of level-dependent robots, including Protectrons, Mister Gutsies, sentry bots, and the occasional robobrain, as well as Mark IV turrets below that are hostile. The Lone Wanderer will eventually be approached by a robot that has been programmed as the second signer of the Declaration, Button Gwinnett.
At this point, one can either:
 Kill Gwinnett and have to fight off many more robots.
Agree to help Gwinnett by forging the Declaration of Independence with supplies from Arlington Library (aka "trick the Redcoats"). Once the Lone Wanderer gives the ink container to Gwinnett, he will create a forgery for them to give to Abraham Washington. If one tells him to continue to guard the document or do whatever he likes, he will remain active and they will gain Karma. If one gives him the order to self-destruct, they will lose Karma. One can still take the genuine Declaration and give both to Abraham.
Convince Gwinnett that they are Thomas Jefferson through a Speech check, which will allow them to simply grab the Declaration and leave without having to do anything more. However, he will deactivate himself, after which one can kill him without Karma loss or causing the turrets to turn hostile.
Order Gwinnett to shut down if they have the Robotics Expert perk. 
Getaway
At this point, the Lone Wanderer either has the real Declaration of Independence, a copy of it, or both.
 To get out, one can:
 Go back the way they came, perhaps using the secret elevator again.
Go through the utility door to the left of Button (which leads to a room with Protectron containers) and then to the main floor.
Fight their way back up the stairs. If Button Gwinnett is killed, there will be a number of robots trying to stop the Lone Wanderer in the basement. Or the door to the west of the room leads to an elevator exit, once the door is unlocked.
 On their way up, they can find the Bill of Rights on one of the floors, in the fenced off area with a safe inside (next to a  Lying, Congressional Style ). One can also find the Magna Carta directly across from where they found The Bill of Rights. The fenced-off area is protected by two Average-locked doors, and two Mark IV turrets. Both can be sold to Abraham Washington (100 caps for the Bill of Rights, 75 for the Magna Carta, more with a Speech check).   
Sydney's quest
After the delivery of the Declaration of Independence to Abraham Washington, ask Sydney, "So, whatever happened to your father?" Previously, this dialogue path was closed as she did not trust the Lone Wanderer. Now, she mentions her father and that he used to call her "Little Moonbeam." If one has found her father's body and holotape in the Statesman Hotel, the option to tell her about her father's message will be available. She will reward the Lone Wanderer with Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG.
Rewards
  Schematics - railway rifle 
400 bottle caps - If Sydney was not encountered, her offer was declined, or she did not survive.
 Sydney's 10mm "Ultra" SMG - If one finishes her quest by giving the "My Little Moonbeam" holotape. 
Quest stages
    Stage Status Description   20   Retrieve the Declaration of Independence from the National Archives.   30   Defend the Rotunda.   50   (Optional) Bring Button Gwinnett the ink.   60   Return to Abraham Washington in Rivet City.    
Notes
 When Sydney is a companion, one can ask her at any time whether she has been hurt. If she says yes, they have the further option of giving her a stimpak, which she will use immediately.
If the Lone Wanderer has 7 Intelligence, they can say that Abraham is looking for the Declaration of Independence. With 8 Intelligence, however, the option is not offered.
Once one has passed the Speech check, Button will also blow himself up if they call him a disgrace to Congress.
If one chooses to retrieve the ink from Arlington Library, after retrieving the forged copy from Button, they will gain access to the safes and the shortcut back to the ground floor of the National Archives.
 This shortcut room contains the pods for the robots, including an inactive "Thomas Jefferson" robot and a backup robot that can have Jefferson's programming transferred to it. As mentioned in some of the computer bulletins, someone has hacked the voice of the robot, replacing it with a radio tuned in to GNR.
The broadcast is due to a pre-War prank mentioned on some of the terminals in the building, which included swapping the voice software of the Protectron with a radio uplink and frequency scanning software. The recall signal does not function, but activating the Shutdown causes it to explode.  
Pick up the real Declaration only if one plans on delivering the real Declaration to Abraham Washington, because he will take either document (real or fake). If one gives Abraham Washington the fake copy, then return for the real thing, they will not be able to drop it (still a quest item). After this, the ink bottle becomes droppable. On the GOTY edition, it cannot be dropped, and it will be stuck with both the ink and the real copy of the Declaration, if one chooses to take both.
 See bugs for more information.  
Completing this quest by returning any form of the Declaration to Abraham Washington will make Three Dog of Galaxy News Radio make mention of the Lone Wanderer in the news ("Huzzah! The time of British oppression is over!").
Remember to speak with Sydney after delivering the Declaration—she does not remain in Rivet City after the quest and will head to Underworld via Anacostia Crossing Station, just north and to the right of Rivet City when exiting. She will be just inside the gate of the station.
If one passes a Speech check from Abraham Washington, he will tell them that he already sent a wastelander such as them to recover the Declaration. He continues to say that sacrifices must be made to preserve history.
One can get an extra 100 caps for the Bill of Rights and 75 caps for the Magna Carta. They are in two different safes along the long way in the sub-level. See the loot section above.
All three documents—the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta—show up on the Capitol Preservation Society wall of documents in golden frames after being sold to Abraham Washington.
If one selects the "This is getting ridiculous" dialogue option, they can exit the strongroom and then re-enter to continue speaking with Button.
Early in development, the player character could additionally find the Emancipation Proclamation, Monroe Doctrine, U.S. Declaration of War on China and the U.S. Declaration of War on Germany in the Archives. In the final game, the only remnants of the documents are entries on the Capital Preservation Society terminal detailing what they contain and Washington's opinions on them.
Even with the Robotics Expert perk, there is no way to order or trick Button Gwinnett to his alcove in the robotic bay for repair or transfer to backup protection unit.
If one uses the same glitch used to obtain Colonel Autumn's 10mm pistol and coat, and with 100 lockpick, they can steal the Declaration of Independence with no Karma loss, and without Button becoming hostile.
The Bill of Rights is marked as a quest item and cannot be dropped. The Magna Carta, however, can be dropped at any time.
If one convinces Button to give them the Declaration, real or fake, hostilities with all robots and turrets in the National Archives will cease. However, Sydney will still attack the turrets on sight. 
Bugs
  For various reasons, usually related to Sydney's death (or resurrection by use of console commands), there will be no option to give Abraham Washington the Declaration of Independence. It is possible to complete this quest with Sydney alive or dead by entering a console command setstage 14ea2 100; however, the Declaration of Independence will remain in the player character's inventory — it cannot be sold, dropped or removed in any other way, as it is a quest item, though quest items do not actually weigh anything (despite what their weight actually reads). One can, however, remove it by using the console command player.removeitem 3a7f 1, or use the command setquestobject 3a7f 0 to remove the "quest item" flag. If instead, one has the Forged Declaration, use player.removeitem 6b192 1 or setquestobject 6b192 0 correspondingly. If one has the ink container stuck in their inventory, use the corresponding console commands to remove it from the inventory (player.removeitem 3aa2 1) or remove the "quest item" flag (setquestobject 3aa2 0).  [verified]  
 One of the super mutants triggered by defending the rotunda causes glitches. It hangs out near the front door to the Archives. It is invisible and it cannot be harmed with guns, but it can be harmed with grenades or mines. It cannot harm the player character either. Companions may successfully kill it, but immediately upon its death, the game freezes. Leaving it alive keeps Sydney uncommunicative — she will just keep telling the Lone Wanderer that the muties are coming — so she cannot be taken along on the quest. It is possible to bypass this glitch and continue in the mission by entering the console command setstage 14ea2 50.  [verified]  
 A potential exploit becomes available if one has found the holotape from Sydney's father. The choice of asking her about her gun does not go away, so when one asks her about it, the option of asking about her father appears again. When chosen, they can once again give her the message to continue to get rewarded again and again. This is still not fixed as of patch 1.7. [verification overdue]   
       v · d · e     Quests in Fallout 3               Main quests    Baby Steps · Growing Up Fast · Future Imperfect · Escape! · Following in His Footsteps ·  Galaxy News Radio  · Scientific Pursuits · Tranquility Lane · The Waters of Life · Picking Up the Trail ·  Rescue from Paradise  · Finding the Garden of Eden · The American Dream · Take it Back! · Project Impurity        Side quests    Agatha's Song · Big Trouble in Big Town · Blood Ties · Head of State · The Nuka-Cola Challenge · Oasis · The Power of the Atom · Reilly's Rangers · The Replicated Man · Stealing Independence · Strictly Business · The Superhuman Gambit · Those! · Tenpenny Tower · Trouble on the Homefront · Wasteland Survival Guide · You Gotta Shoot 'Em in the Head        Unmarked quests    A Manhandled Manservant · A Nice Day for a Right Wedding · Happy Birthday to You · Church Donations · Collecting Holotags · Council Seat · Economics of Violence · Election Day · Fungus Deal · Gallows Humor · Geomapping with Reilly · Grady's Package · Hired Help · I Want to Drink Your Blood · Jiggs' Loot · Just for the Taste of It · Keller Family Refuge · Leo's Drug Habit · Lincoln's Profit Margins · Merchant Empire · Mississippi Quantum Pie · Murphy's Bombing Run · Nectar Collecting for Fun and Profit · Our Little Secret · Ryan Brigg's Wonder Meat · Searching for Cheryl · Slave Hunt · Strictly Profitable · The Kid-Kidnapper · The Lost Initiate · The Outcast Collection Agent · This Old House · Treatment · Walter's Scrap Metal · Water Beggars · Yearning for Learning · Zip's Nuka Fix         Add-on quests     Operation: Anchorage      Aiding the Outcasts · The Guns of Anchorage · Paving the Way · Operation: Anchorage!          The Pitt      Free Labor · Into The Pitt ·  Mill Worker  ·  Toys for Tots  · Unsafe Working Conditions ·  Wild Bill's Last Stand  · Slave Snitch           Broken Steel       The Sorrowful Suitor  ·  Blood Brotherhood  · Death From Above ·  Getting Ready for Prime Time  · Shock Value · Who Dares Wins · Holy Water · Protecting the Water Way · The Amazing Aqua Cura! ·  Wastelander Water Request           Point Lookout      The Local Flavor  · Walking with Spirits · Hearing Voices ·  Tailing the Tomboy  · Thought Control · A Meeting of the Minds · A Spoonful of Whiskey · An Antique Land · Plik's Safari · The Dark Heart of Blackhall · The Velvet Curtain          Mothership Zeta      Not of This World · Among the Stars · This Galaxy Ain't Big Enough... ·  The Legend of Zeta
Stealing Independence
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Stealing_Independence
https://www.gamepressure.com/fallout3/rivet-city-stealing-independence/z01636
Fallout 3: Rivet City: Stealing independence - walkthrough, side quests
2022-11-02T00:00:00Z

<html><body><div><article>
<div>
<header>
<p>Last update: 02 November 2022</p>
</header>
<nav>
	<a href="https://www.gamepressure.com/fallout3/capitol-wasteland-head-of-state/z11637">
	<span>
	<b>Next</b>
	</span>
	<span>
	<b>Side quests</b>
	</span>
	<span><b>Capitol Wasteland: Head of state</b></span> 
	</a>
	
<a href="https://www.gamepressure.com/fallout3/rivet-city-the-replicated-man/zf1635">
	<span>
	<b>Prev</b>
	</span>
	<span>
	<b>Side quests</b>
	<span>
	<span><b>Rivet City: The replicated man</b></span></span></span></a>
	
</nav>	
<h3>Rivet City: Stealing independence</h3><p><b>Received from</b>: <b><span>Abraham Washington </span></b>[<b><span>Rivet City - Middle deck</span></b>]</p>
<p><b>Solution: </b>You can find <b><span>Abraham Washington</span></b> inside a museum which is located in one of the cabins on the middle deck of the ship. He may be standing in the main room, near exhibits, or he may be sleeping in his private chamber. <b><span>Abraham</span></b> will ask you to acquire a very unique item for him - the famous <b><span>Declaration of Independence</span></b>. In order to get your hands on this object you must first travel to <b><span>National Archives</span></b>. Don&#39;t forget to ask <b><span>Abraham</span></b> to mark this area on your personal map, because I assume you haven&#39;t been there before. Sadly, in order to get to <b><span>National Archives</span></b> you must travel through a battlefield filled with <b><span>supermutant</span></b> units. It would be a good idea to ignore the <b><span>monsters</span></b> and make a run for it. I&#39;m sure that you won&#39;t have any major problems finding the monument (screen). Use the stairs and open the main door to get to the ground floor of <b><span>National Archives</span></b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Exploring main floor of National Archives:</b></p>
<p>Once you&#39;ve entered <b><span>National Archives</span></b> and explored the first room you should notice an entrance to a large rotunda in front of the main door. Don&#39;t go there just yet. Instead, focus on securing other rooms of <b><span>National Archives</span></b>. I guess you won&#39;t be surprised to hear that you&#39;ll be dealing with a lot of <b><span>supermutants</span></b> (and the most dangerous kind). Make sure that you search each room for additional supplies. You may come across mines and grenades hidden inside large boxes (screen). Use these objects against <b><span>supermutants</span></b>, especially if you don&#39;t have too much ammunition for your most powerful weapons. You must also watch out for <b><span>landmines</span></b>. They are well hidden and you can step on one if you&#39;re not careful enough.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Once you&#39;ve secured the entire ground floor proceed to the oval chamber. Upon entering this room you&#39;ll hear <b><span>Sydney</span></b> calling out to you. Listen to her warning - there are a lot of <b><span>landmine</span></b> traps in this room. Before you&#39;ll have a chance to talk to <b><span>Sydney</span></b> you will have to defend this area against several <b><span>supermutant</span></b> attacks. The first group will arrive in about 20 seconds and you should place a lot of <b><span>landmines</span></b> in front of the rotunda in the meantime. Once the battle has started focus on eliminating <b><span>supermutants</span></b> equipped with <b><span>rocket launchers</span></b> (screen). I would also recommend that you try and keep <b><span>Sydney</span></b> alive, however you won&#39;t fail the quest if she dies. Defend this area against several waves of attacks. Talk to <b><span>Sydney</span></b> once it&#39;s safe and she&#39;ll offer that you should find the <b><span>declaration</span></b> together. I would recommend that you agree to her proposal, because at the end of the quest you&#39;ll be able to get rid of her without losing karma.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Finding Declaration of Independence:</b></p>
<p>Don&#39;t exit this room. Instead, take your time and disarm all <b><span>landmines</span></b> located inside the rotunda. It shouldn&#39;t be a problem, as long as you don&#39;t move too fast and don&#39;t trigger one of the mines by mistake. After that approach a security terminal (screen) and use <b><span>Sydney&#39;s </span></b>password to access it. You may proceed to the central area of the rotunda. Look down and press the action key to get inside an elevator. Wait for the elevator to transport you to the <b><span>eastern security wing</span></b>. Once you&#39;ve reached a new area, you should prepare yourself before moving on. Create shortcuts for <b><span>pulse grenades</span></b> and <b><span>pulse mines</span></b>, because you&#39;re going to need those to take care of a lot of <b><span>robots</span></b>. The entire basement is swarming with hostile <b><span>machines</span></b>, but only <b><span>Mister Gutsy</span></b> and <b><span>sentry bot</span></b> are two types of <b><span>robots</span></b> you should be afraid of. The main reason is that they&#39;re using <b><span>laser</span></b> and <b><span>plasma rifles</span></b>, <b><span>flamethrowers</span></b>, <b><span>rocket launchers</span></b> and <b><span>miniguns</span></b> to hunt you down. Make sure to check each room you pass by, because there&#39;s a high probability of finding more explosives. You can also search for additional artifacts for <b><span>Abraham Washington</span></b>, but it&#39;s optional.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Find a staircase which leads to a lower level. Keep heading north, because that&#39;s where the main security vault is located. Find a door leading to the <b><span>safe</span></b>. Upon entering this new location you are going to be stopped by a <b><span>robot</span></b> who thinks that he is <b><span>Button Gwinnett</span></b>. You will have to decide how to act next.</p>
<p><b>Negative outcome:</b></p>
<p>If you plan on lowering your karma you will have to acquire the original <b><span>Declaration of Independence</span></b> at all costs. By steering the conversation in a right way you can make <b><span>Button </span></b>attack you. Sadly, not only you would have to destroy this one <b><span>machine</span></b>, but you would also have to take out two <b><span>security turrets</span></b>. Check <b><span>Button&#39;s</span></b> remains and you&#39;ll find a <b><span>holotape</span></b> with a password to the main vault. Find a security terminal and use it to open all available passageways. Enter the vault (it was behind <b><span>Button</span></b>) and open the middle safe (screen). Take the <b><span>Declaration of Independence</span></b> with you. Alternatively during your conversation with <b><span>Button</span></b> you could pose as <b><span>Thomas Jefferson</span></b>. This can only be successful if you&#39;ve spent a lot of points on speech and if you succeed in a challenge. <b><span>Button</span></b> would hand over the <b><span>document</span></b> to you without any additional problems.</p>
<p>Once the <b><span>declaration</span></b> is in your possession go back the same way you came before or proceed towards an unexplored passageway, located to the left of <b><span>Button</span></b>. Ignore the room with the capsules and move forward. Eventually you&#39;ll get to an elevator. Use it go back to the main floor of <b><span>National Archives</span></b>. Exit this monument and fast travel to <b><span>Rivet City</span></b>. Go to <b><span>Abraham Washington</span></b> and hand him over the original <b><span>document</span></b>, as well as other artifacts you may have found during your stay in <b><span>National Archives</span></b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Positive outcome:</b></p>
<p>If you want to raise your karma you will have to convince <b><span>Button</span></b> during your first conversation with him that he should manufacture a duplicate of the <b><span>Declaration of Independence</span></b>. In order for this to work you may want to mention the communists. <b><span>Button</span></b> will give you a small assignment. You must go to <b><span>Arlington Library</span></b> in order to acquire an <b><span>ink</span></b>, needed to forge a <b><span>duplicate</span></b>. You can find a lot of hints on how to reach the library in <b>The wasteland survival guide </b>quest description. You will find the <b><span>ink</span></b> in the exact same room where the computer you had to access for <b><span>Moira</span></b> was located - <b><span>Arlington Library media archive</span></b>. You can find the <b><span>ink </span></b>inside a large box (screen). Take it and go back to <b><span>Button</span></b>. Hand him over the <b><span>ink</span></b> and you&#39;ll receive a <b><span>copy of the Declaration of Independence </span></b>in a short while. Use the same passageway I&#39;ve mentioned before (the one with a lot of capsules on both sides of the corridor).</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Going back to Rivet City:</b></p>
<p>Like I&#39;ve already said, you can try and get rid of <b><span>Sydney</span></b> before going back to <b><span>Rivet City</span></b>. Obviously you could kill her, but this would result in losing a lot of karma points. Instead after leaving <b><span>National Archives</span></b> you may allow her to join you in a fight with <b><span>supermutants</span></b>. There are a lot of those outside the monument, so it shouldn&#39;t take you too long to find them. Wait for <b><span>Sydney</span></b> to be killed and examine her body. Sydney was carrying a very interesting submachine gun, called <b><span>Sydney&#39;s 10mm &#34;Ultra&#34; SMG</span></b>. Take it and retreat from the battlefield. If you want to keep her alive, fast travel to <b><span>Rivet City</span></b> the second you&#39;ve left <b><span>National Archives</span></b>.</p>
<p>Obviously you must return to the aircraft carrier. Go to <b><span>Abraham Washington</span></b> and hand him over the <b><span>declaration</span></b> (fake or original). <b><span>Abraham</span></b> will reward you with a <b><span>schematic for a railway rifle</span></b>. If you came back with <b><span>Sydney</span></b>, you&#39;ll have to share the reward. If you came back alone, you&#39;ll get all the caps.</p>
<p></p>
	
<nav>
	<a href="https://www.gamepressure.com/fallout3/capitol-wasteland-head-of-state/z11637">
	<span>
	<b>Next</b>
	</span>
	<span>
	<b>Side quests</b>
	</span>
	<span><b>Capitol Wasteland: Head of state</b></span> 
	</a>
	
<a href="https://www.gamepressure.com/fallout3/rivet-city-the-replicated-man/zf1635">
	<span>
	<b>Prev</b>
	</span>
	<span>
	<b>Side quests</b>
	<span>
	<span><b>Rivet City: The replicated man</b></span></span></span></a>
	
</nav>
</div>
</article></div></body></html>
Last update: 02 November 2022
	
	
	Next
	
	
	Side quests
	
	 Capitol Wasteland: Head of state  
	
	
	
	Prev
	
	
	Side quests
	
	 Rivet City: The replicated man    
	
	
Rivet City: Stealing independence  Received from:  Abraham Washington  [ Rivet City - Middle deck ]
 Solution: You can find  Abraham Washington  inside a museum which is located in one of the cabins on the middle deck of the ship. He may be standing in the main room, near exhibits, or he may be sleeping in his private chamber.  Abraham  will ask you to acquire a very unique item for him - the famous  Declaration of Independence . In order to get your hands on this object you must first travel to  National Archives . Don&#39;t forget to ask  Abraham  to mark this area on your personal map, because I assume you haven&#39;t been there before. Sadly, in order to get to  National Archives  you must travel through a battlefield filled with  supermutant  units. It would be a good idea to ignore the  monsters  and make a run for it. I&#39;m sure that you won&#39;t have any major problems finding the monument (screen). Use the stairs and open the main door to get to the ground floor of  National Archives .
 
 Exploring main floor of National Archives: 
Once you&#39;ve entered  National Archives  and explored the first room you should notice an entrance to a large rotunda in front of the main door. Don&#39;t go there just yet. Instead, focus on securing other rooms of  National Archives . I guess you won&#39;t be surprised to hear that you&#39;ll be dealing with a lot of  supermutants  (and the most dangerous kind). Make sure that you search each room for additional supplies. You may come across mines and grenades hidden inside large boxes (screen). Use these objects against  supermutants , especially if you don&#39;t have too much ammunition for your most powerful weapons. You must also watch out for  landmines . They are well hidden and you can step on one if you&#39;re not careful enough.
 
Once you&#39;ve secured the entire ground floor proceed to the oval chamber. Upon entering this room you&#39;ll hear  Sydney  calling out to you. Listen to her warning - there are a lot of  landmine  traps in this room. Before you&#39;ll have a chance to talk to  Sydney  you will have to defend this area against several  supermutant  attacks. The first group will arrive in about 20 seconds and you should place a lot of  landmines  in front of the rotunda in the meantime. Once the battle has started focus on eliminating  supermutants  equipped with  rocket launchers  (screen). I would also recommend that you try and keep  Sydney  alive, however you won&#39;t fail the quest if she dies. Defend this area against several waves of attacks. Talk to  Sydney  once it&#39;s safe and she&#39;ll offer that you should find the  declaration  together. I would recommend that you agree to her proposal, because at the end of the quest you&#39;ll be able to get rid of her without losing karma.
 
 Finding Declaration of Independence: 
Don&#39;t exit this room. Instead, take your time and disarm all  landmines  located inside the rotunda. It shouldn&#39;t be a problem, as long as you don&#39;t move too fast and don&#39;t trigger one of the mines by mistake. After that approach a security terminal (screen) and use  Sydney&#39;s  password to access it. You may proceed to the central area of the rotunda. Look down and press the action key to get inside an elevator. Wait for the elevator to transport you to the  eastern security wing . Once you&#39;ve reached a new area, you should prepare yourself before moving on. Create shortcuts for  pulse grenades  and  pulse mines , because you&#39;re going to need those to take care of a lot of  robots . The entire basement is swarming with hostile  machines , but only  Mister Gutsy  and  sentry bot  are two types of  robots  you should be afraid of. The main reason is that they&#39;re using  laser  and  plasma rifles ,  flamethrowers ,  rocket launchers  and  miniguns  to hunt you down. Make sure to check each room you pass by, because there&#39;s a high probability of finding more explosives. You can also search for additional artifacts for  Abraham Washington , but it&#39;s optional.
 
Find a staircase which leads to a lower level. Keep heading north, because that&#39;s where the main security vault is located. Find a door leading to the  safe . Upon entering this new location you are going to be stopped by a  robot  who thinks that he is  Button Gwinnett . You will have to decide how to act next.
 Negative outcome: 
If you plan on lowering your karma you will have to acquire the original  Declaration of Independence  at all costs. By steering the conversation in a right way you can make  Button  attack you. Sadly, not only you would have to destroy this one  machine , but you would also have to take out two  security turrets . Check  Button&#39;s  remains and you&#39;ll find a  holotape  with a password to the main vault. Find a security terminal and use it to open all available passageways. Enter the vault (it was behind  Button ) and open the middle safe (screen). Take the  Declaration of Independence  with you. Alternatively during your conversation with  Button  you could pose as  Thomas Jefferson . This can only be successful if you&#39;ve spent a lot of points on speech and if you succeed in a challenge.  Button  would hand over the  document  to you without any additional problems.
Once the  declaration  is in your possession go back the same way you came before or proceed towards an unexplored passageway, located to the left of  Button . Ignore the room with the capsules and move forward. Eventually you&#39;ll get to an elevator. Use it go back to the main floor of  National Archives . Exit this monument and fast travel to  Rivet City . Go to  Abraham Washington  and hand him over the original  document , as well as other artifacts you may have found during your stay in  National Archives .
 
 Positive outcome: 
If you want to raise your karma you will have to convince  Button  during your first conversation with him that he should manufacture a duplicate of the  Declaration of Independence . In order for this to work you may want to mention the communists.  Button  will give you a small assignment. You must go to  Arlington Library  in order to acquire an  ink , needed to forge a  duplicate . You can find a lot of hints on how to reach the library in The wasteland survival guide quest description. You will find the  ink  in the exact same room where the computer you had to access for  Moira  was located -  Arlington Library media archive . You can find the  ink  inside a large box (screen). Take it and go back to  Button . Hand him over the  ink  and you&#39;ll receive a  copy of the Declaration of Independence  in a short while. Use the same passageway I&#39;ve mentioned before (the one with a lot of capsules on both sides of the corridor).
 
 Going back to Rivet City: 
Like I&#39;ve already said, you can try and get rid of  Sydney  before going back to  Rivet City . Obviously you could kill her, but this would result in losing a lot of karma points. Instead after leaving  National Archives  you may allow her to join you in a fight with  supermutants . There are a lot of those outside the monument, so it shouldn&#39;t take you too long to find them. Wait for  Sydney  to be killed and examine her body. Sydney was carrying a very interesting submachine gun, called  Sydney&#39;s 10mm &#34;Ultra&#34; SMG . Take it and retreat from the battlefield. If you want to keep her alive, fast travel to  Rivet City  the second you&#39;ve left  National Archives .
Obviously you must return to the aircraft carrier. Go to  Abraham Washington  and hand him over the  declaration  (fake or original).  Abraham  will reward you with a  schematic for a railway rifle . If you came back with  Sydney , you&#39;ll have to share the reward. If you came back alone, you&#39;ll get all the caps.
 
	
	
	
	Next
	
	
	Side quests
	
	 Capitol Wasteland: Head of state  
	
	
	
	Prev
	
	
	Side quests
	
	 Rivet City: The replicated man
Fallout 3: Rivet City: Stealing independence - walkthrough, side quests
https://guides.gamepressure.com/fallout3/guide.asp?ID=5686
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7558302/
Lying and Stealing (2019) ⭐ 5.4 | Crime, Drama, Thriller
2019-07-12
None
<div><div><p>This certainly isn't a film that everyone will be raving about, but hey, filmmakers have to start somewhere right? Considering that point, this film was no too bad to say the least.</p><p>This is newb filmmaker Matt Aselton's second writing credit, and third directing credit. Yes there were some flaws in the writing - plot issues and pacing, but the directing (camera work) was actually on point - aside from the few slo-mo scenes, and his inexperience in directing his cast was evident. Otherwise, mad respect for Matt Aselton's final result.</p><p>Theo James and Emily Ratajkowski worked well together, and their characters where somewhat convincing, but again, that (somewhat ) was from the lack of experience from the director. Fred Melamed was also decent in his slimy/creepy boss-man role as Dimitri.</p><p>I also feel the film could've been edited a little better, and perhaps down from the 100 min length, to about 85-90 mins, with faster pacing.</p><p>Nevertheless, for a low budget B-grade film from a newbie filmmaker, I still enjoyed it and was quite impressed with Aselton's third ever film.</p><p>It certainly is undeserving of the current low rating... people need to learn how to rate a film based on its merits, and not compare it to big budget Hollywood films with A-list cast and filmmakers. So it's a well deserving 7.5 rounded up to an 8/10 from me. Mad props for the producers to not fill IMDb with fake reviews, as most new low budget films have. And if anyone is questioning my review as being fake, click on my username to see my 600+ reviews and 1000+ ratings - and read my profile on how to properly rate a film.</p></div></div>||||I|||| Menu
 Movies
 Release Calendar Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Browse Movies by Genre Top Box Office Showtimes & Tickets Movie News India Movie Spotlight
 TV Shows
 What's on TV & Streaming Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Browse TV Shows by Genre TV News
 Watch
 What to Watch Latest Trailers IMDb Originals IMDb Picks IMDb Spotlight IMDb Podcasts
 Awards & Events
 Oscars SXSW Film Festival Cannes Film Festival STARmeter Awards Awards Central Festival Central All Events
 Celebs
 Born Today Most Popular Celebs Celebrity News
 Community
 Help Center Contributor Zone Polls
 For Industry Professionals
 * Language
 English (United States)
 * Language
 * 
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 All
 * All
 * Titles
 * TV Episodes
 * Celebs
 * Companies
 * Keywords
 * 
 Advanced Search
 Watchlist
 Sign In
 Sign In
 New Customer? Create account
 EN
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 Use app
 * Cast & crew
 * User reviews
 * FAQ
 IMDbPro
 All topics

 Lying and Stealing

 * 2019
 * R
 * 1h 40m
 IMDb RATING
 5.4 / 10
 6.9K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 Play trailer 2 :08
 4 Videos
 29 Photos
 Crime Drama Thriller

 Ivan steals art for the Greek. He wants out but can he? He meets an actress at two of his "jobs". She has her own problems but helps him. Ivan steals art for the Greek. He wants out but can he? He meets an actress at two of his "jobs". She has her own problems but helps him. Ivan steals art for the Greek. He wants out but can he? He meets an actress at two of his "jobs". She has her own problems but helps him.

 * Director
 + Matt Aselton
 * Writers
 + Matt Aselton
 + Adam Nagata
 * Stars
 + Theo James
 + Emily Ratajkowski
 + Fred Melamed
 * See production info at IMDbPro
 IMDb RATING
 5.4 / 10
 6.9K
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 Top credits
 * Director
 + Matt Aselton
 * Writers
 + Matt Aselton
 + Adam Nagata
 * Stars
 + Theo James
 + Emily Ratajkowski
 + Fred Melamed
 * 52 User reviews
 * 21 Critic reviews
 * 50 Metascore
 * See production info at IMDbPro

 Videos 4

 Trailer 2:08
 Watch Official Trailer
 Clip 1:48
 Watch Lying And Stealing: Die Or Not Die
 Clip 1:19
 Watch Lying And Stealing: One Thing
 Clip 1:04
 Watch Lying And Stealing: You Don't Need Good Luck

 Photos 29

 Top cast

 Edit
 Theo James
 * Ivan Warding
 Emily Ratajkowski
 * Elyse Tibaldi
 Fred Melamed
 * Dimitri Maropakis
 Ebon Moss-Bachrach
 * Ray Warding
 Isiah Whitlock Jr.
 * Lyman Wilkers
 Evan Handler
 * Eric Maropakis
 Paul Jurewicz
 * Ian Brooks
 Keith Powell
 * Mike Williams
 John Gatins
 * Aton Eisenstadt
 Joe Bucaro III
 * Anatoli and Aristotle Papadais
 * (as Joe Bucaro)
 Julia Haart
 * Foxy
 Phil Van Tee
 * Magician
 Fernanda Andrade
 * Mary Bertring
 Orion McCabe
 * Mick
 Mia Cheung
 * Cindy
 Eileen O'Connell
 * Zoe the Hostess
 Eddie Martinez
 * Dave the Bartender
 Sean Patrick Thomas
 * Trey Walker
 * Director
 + Matt Aselton
 * Writers
 + Matt Aselton
 + Adam Nagata
 * All cast & crew
 * Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

 More like this

 6.3
 Backstabbing for Beginners
 6.7
 The Secret Scripture
 5.2
 The Benefactor
 5.1
 How It Ends
 5.7
 Allegiant
 6.0
 Mr. Malcolm's List
 6.4
 Archive
 7.2
 Golden Boy
 6.2
 The Divergent Series: Insurgent
 5.9
 Black Bags
 6.1
 Zoe
 3.9
 London Fields

 Storyline

 Edit

 Did you know

 Edit
 * Goofs
 At 53:20, after Elyse leaves the craps table, the dice roller calls for a drink. Then he picks up the dice and turns to accept the drink. The dice in his right-hand breaks the plane of the table. If this were to happen in a real casino, the croupier would be all over the player and would be required to change the dice.
 * Quotes

 Dimitri: Smell my neck.

 Ray Warding: Uh, I am truly the least qualified person to smell you.

 * Connections
 References Scarface (1983)
 * Soundtracks
 Beyond the Power of Reason
 Written by Alex Lamy (PRS) / Alibi Generator (ASCAP)
 Licensed by ALIBI Music Library

 User reviews 52

 Review
 Review
 Featured review
 8 / 10
 Not too bad of a B-grade film, coming from a newb writer/director.
 This certainly isn't a film that everyone will be raving about, but hey, filmmakers have to start somewhere right? Considering that point, this film was no too bad to say the least.

 This is newb filmmaker Matt Aselton's second writing credit, and third directing credit. Yes there were some flaws in the writing - plot issues and pacing, but the directing (camera work) was actually on point - aside from the few slo-mo scenes, and his inexperience in directing his cast was evident. Otherwise, mad respect for Matt Aselton's final result.

 Theo James and Emily Ratajkowski worked well together, and their characters where somewhat convincing, but again, that (somewhat ) was from the lack of experience from the director. Fred Melamed was also decent in his slimy/creepy boss-man role as Dimitri.

 I also feel the film could've been edited a little better, and perhaps down from the 100 min length, to about 85-90 mins, with faster pacing.

 Nevertheless, for a low budget B-grade film from a newbie filmmaker, I still enjoyed it and was quite impressed with Aselton's third ever film.

 It certainly is undeserving of the current low rating... people need to learn how to rate a film based on its merits, and not compare it to big budget Hollywood films with A-list cast and filmmakers. So it's a well deserving 7.5 rounded up to an 8/10 from me. Mad props for the producers to not fill IMDb with fake reviews, as most new low budget films have. And if anyone is questioning my review as being fake, click on my username to see my 600+ reviews and 1000+ ratings - and read my profile on how to properly rate a film.
 helpful • 59
 25
 * Top_Dawg_Critic
 * Jul 13, 2019

 Top picks

 Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
 Sign in

 FAQ 15

 * How long is Lying and Stealing? Powered by Alexa

 Details

 Edit
 * Release date
 + July 12, 2019 (United States)
 * Country of origin
 + United States
 * Official site
 + Vertical Entertainment (United States)
 * Language
 + English
 * Also known as
 + Мистецтво обману
 * Filming locations
 + Los Angeles, California, USA
 * Production companies
 + 50 Degrees Entertainment
 + Roc Pictures
 * See more company credits at IMDbPro

 Box office

 Edit
 * Gross worldwide
 + $641,509
 See detailed box office info on IMDbPro

 Technical specs

 Edit
 * Runtime
 1 hour 40 minutes
 * Color
 + Color
 * Aspect ratio
 + 2.35 : 1

 Related news

 Contribute to this page

 Suggest an edit or add missing content
 Top Gap
 By what name was Lying and Stealing (2019) officially released in India in English?
 Answer
 * See more gaps
 * Learn more about contributing
 Edit page

 More to explore

 Photos
 Trending Actors in Their Early Roles
 See the gallery
 Photos
 The Latest (and Greatest) New Posters
 See the gallery
 List
 What We're Watching: Time Travel and Anime
 See the full list

 Recently viewed

 You have no recently viewed pages
 Get the IMDb app
 Sign in for more access Sign in for more access
 Follow IMDb on social
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Get the IMDb app
 For Android and iOS
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Help
 * Site Index
 * IMDbPro
 * Box Office Mojo
 * License IMDb Data
 * Press Room
 * Advertising
 * Jobs
 * Conditions of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Your Ads Privacy Choices

 © 1990-2024 by IMDb.com, Inc.

 Back to top
This certainly isn't a film that everyone will be raving about, but hey, filmmakers have to start somewhere right? Considering that point, this film was no too bad to say the least. This is newb filmmaker Matt Aselton's second writing credit, and third directing credit. Yes there were some flaws in the writing - plot issues and pacing, but the directing (camera work) was actually on point - aside from the few slo-mo scenes, and his inexperience in directing his cast was evident. Otherwise, mad respect for Matt Aselton's final result. Theo James and Emily Ratajkowski worked well together, and their characters where somewhat convincing, but again, that (somewhat ) was from the lack of experience from the director. Fred Melamed was also decent in his slimy/creepy boss-man role as Dimitri. I also feel the film could've been edited a little better, and perhaps down from the 100 min length, to about 85-90 mins, with faster pacing. Nevertheless, for a low budget B-grade film from a newbie filmmaker, I still enjoyed it and was quite impressed with Aselton's third ever film. It certainly is undeserving of the current low rating... people need to learn how to rate a film based on its merits, and not compare it to big budget Hollywood films with A-list cast and filmmakers. So it's a well deserving 7.5 rounded up to an 8/10 from me. Mad props for the producers to not fill IMDb with fake reviews, as most new low budget films have. And if anyone is questioning my review as being fake, click on my username to see my 600+ reviews and 1000+ ratings - and read my profile on how to properly rate a film.
Lying and Stealing (2019) ⭐ 5.4 | Crime, Drama, Thriller
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7558302/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/
Stealing Chanel (2015) ⭐ 5.2 | Comedy, Romance
2015-10-23
None
<div><section><section><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ql_1">Cast &amp; crew</a></li><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/reviews/?ref_=tt_ql_2">User reviews</a></li><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/trivia/?ref_=tt_ql_3">Trivia</a></li></ul></div><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_rdat">2015</a></li><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/parentalguide/certificates?ref_=tt_ov_pg">TV-14</a></li><li>1h 42m</li></ul></div><div><div><p></p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/mediaviewer/rm56287232/?ref_=tt_ov_i"></a></div><div><section><p></p><li></li></section><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/reviews/?ref_=tt_ov_rt"></a></li><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/externalreviews/?ref_=tt_ov_rt"></a></li></ul><li></li><li></li></div></div></div></section></section><div><div><section><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/review/tt3129692/add?bus=imdb&amp;return_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fclose_me&amp;site=web&amp;ref_=tt_urv_add"></a></section><section><div><hgroup><h3></h3></hgroup><p>Suggest an edit or add missing content</p></div><div><div><p></p></div><div><p>By what name was Stealing Chanel (2015) officially released in Canada in English?</p><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/answers?pinnedQuestion=tt3129692.title_aka.CA.en-US&amp;ref_=tt_ans_q">Answer</a></p></div></div><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/updates?ref_=tt_cn_edt&amp;edit=legacy%2Ftitle%2Ftt3129692%2F"></a></p></section></div><div><p><hgroup><h3>More to explore</h3></hgroup></p></div></div></div>||||I|||| Menu
 Movies
 Release Calendar Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Browse Movies by Genre Top Box Office Showtimes & Tickets Movie News India Movie Spotlight
 TV Shows
 What's on TV & Streaming Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Browse TV Shows by Genre TV News
 Watch
 What to Watch Latest Trailers IMDb Originals IMDb Picks IMDb Spotlight IMDb Podcasts
 Awards & Events
 Oscars SXSW Film Festival Cannes Film Festival STARmeter Awards Awards Central Festival Central All Events
 Celebs
 Born Today Most Popular Celebs Celebrity News
 Community
 Help Center Contributor Zone Polls
 For Industry Professionals
 * Language
 English (United States)
 * Language
 * 
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 All
 * All
 * Titles
 * TV Episodes
 * Celebs
 * Companies
 * Keywords
 * 
 Advanced Search
 Watchlist
 Sign In
 Sign In
 New Customer? Create account
 EN
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 Use app
 * Cast & crew
 * User reviews
 * Trivia
 IMDbPro
 All topics

 Stealing Chanel

 * 2015
 * TV-14
 * 1h 42m
 IMDb RATING
 5.2 / 10
 73
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 Comedy Romance

 A compulsive thief of designer clothing in Manhattan is forced into a brutal rehabilitation program with a frumpy heiress and court appointed psychologist. A compulsive thief of designer clothing in Manhattan is forced into a brutal rehabilitation program with a frumpy heiress and court appointed psychologist. A compulsive thief of designer clothing in Manhattan is forced into a brutal rehabilitation program with a frumpy heiress and court appointed psychologist.

 * Director
 + Roberto Mitrotti
 * Writers
 + Linda Howard
 + Roberto Mitrotti
 * Stars
 + Adam LaVorgna
 + Lydia Hearst
 + Carol Alt
 * See production info at IMDbPro
 IMDb RATING
 5.2 / 10
 73
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 * Director
 + Roberto Mitrotti
 * Writers
 + Linda Howard
 + Roberto Mitrotti
 * Stars
 + Adam LaVorgna
 + Lydia Hearst
 + Carol Alt
 * 2 User reviews
 * 1 Critic review
 * See production info at IMDbPro
 * See production info at IMDbPro

 Photos

 Add photo

 Top cast

 Edit
 Adam LaVorgna
 * Giorgio Bene
 Lydia Hearst
 * Chanel
 Carol Alt
 * Evi
 Anna Maria Cianciulli
 * Filomena Bene
 Margaret Colin
 * Constance Borden
 John Rothman
 * Charles Borden
 Gabriel Sloyer
 * Pico
 Daniel Raymont
 * Dr. Adler
 Alex Emanuel
 * Stefan
 Dean Neistat
 * Costas
 Francois Mensah
 * XYZebra
 Laurence Cantor
 * Judge
 Addison LeMay
 * Agent O'Rourke
 Waliek Crandall
 * Agent Towne
 Sebastian Banes
 * Young Giorgio Age 6
 Severyn Banes
 * Schoold boy 1
 Leah Barker
 * Young Student
 Dario Barosso
 * School boy 2
 * Director
 + Roberto Mitrotti (attached)
 * Writers
 + Linda Howard
 + Roberto Mitrotti
 * All cast & crew
 * Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

 Storyline

 Edit

 Did you know

 Edit
 * Trivia
 Margaret Colin plays a character named Constance. She has the same name in Independence Day (1994)

 User reviews 2

 Review
 Review

 Top picks

 Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
 Sign in

 Details

 Edit
 * Release date
 + October 23, 2015 (United States)
 * Country of origin
 + United States
 * Language
 + English
 * Also known as
 + Robando Chanel
 * Production companies
 + RPM Media
 + Shopliftermovie
 * See more company credits at IMDbPro

 Technical specs

 Edit
 * Runtime
 1 hour 42 minutes
 * Color
 + Color

 Related news

 Contribute to this page

 Suggest an edit or add missing content
 Top Gap
 By what name was Stealing Chanel (2015) officially released in Canada in English?
 Answer
 * See more gaps
 * Learn more about contributing
 Edit page

 More to explore

 List
 Staff Picks: What to Watch in April
 See our picks
 Photos
 The Latest (and Greatest) New Posters
 See the gallery
 List
 What We're Watching: Time Travel and Anime
 See the full list

 Recently viewed

 You have no recently viewed pages
 Get the IMDb app
 Sign in for more access Sign in for more access
 Follow IMDb on social
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Get the IMDb app
 For Android and iOS
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Help
 * Site Index
 * IMDbPro
 * Box Office Mojo
 * License IMDb Data
 * Press Room
 * Advertising
 * Jobs
 * Conditions of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Your Ads Privacy Choices

 © 1990-2024 by IMDb.com, Inc.

 Back to top
Cast &amp; crew   User reviews   Trivia       2015   TV-14  1h 42m                                                 Suggest an edit or add missing content        By what name was Stealing Chanel (2015) officially released in Canada in English?  Answer             More to explore
Stealing Chanel (2015) ⭐ 5.2 | Comedy, Romance
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129692/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14203866/
Stealing the Show (2021) ⭐ 8.9
2021-10-29
None
<div><div><main><div><section><section><section><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14203866/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ql_1">Cast &amp; crew</a></li></ul></div><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14203866/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_rdat">2021</a></li></ul></div><div><div><p></p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14203866/mediaviewer/rm1605498113/?ref_=tt_ov_i"></a></div><section><p></p><li></li></section></div></section></section><div><div><section><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14203866/videogallery/?ref_=tt_vi_sm"><h3>Videos</h3></a></p><div><p></p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/video/vi512475929/?ref_=tt_vi_i_1"></a></div></section><div><hgroup><h3></h3></hgroup></div><section><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/review/tt14203866/add?bus=imdb&amp;return_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fclose_me&amp;site=web&amp;ref_=tt_urv_add"></a></section><section><div><hgroup><h3></h3></hgroup><p>Suggest an edit or add missing content</p></div><div><div><p></p></div><div><p>By what name was Stealing the Show (2021) officially released in Canada in English?</p><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/answers?pinnedQuestion=tt14203866.title_aka.CA.en-US&amp;ref_=tt_ans_q">Answer</a></p></div></div><p><a href="https://contribute.imdb.com/updates?ref_=tt_cn_edt&amp;edit=legacy%2Ftitle%2Ftt14203866%2F"></a></p></section></div><div><p><hgroup><h3>More to explore</h3></hgroup></p></div></div></section></div></main></div></div>||||I|||| Menu
 Movies
 Release Calendar Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Browse Movies by Genre Top Box Office Showtimes & Tickets Movie News India Movie Spotlight
 TV Shows
 What's on TV & Streaming Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Browse TV Shows by Genre TV News
 Watch
 What to Watch Latest Trailers IMDb Originals IMDb Picks IMDb Spotlight IMDb Podcasts
 Awards & Events
 Oscars SXSW Film Festival Cannes Film Festival STARmeter Awards Awards Central Festival Central All Events
 Celebs
 Born Today Most Popular Celebs Celebrity News
 Community
 Help Center Contributor Zone Polls
 For Industry Professionals
 * Language
 English (United States)
 * Language
 * 
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 All
 * All
 * Titles
 * TV Episodes
 * Celebs
 * Companies
 * Keywords
 * 
 Advanced Search
 Watchlist
 Sign In
 Sign In
 New Customer? Create account
 EN
 * Fully supported
 * 
 * English (United States)
 * 
 Partially supported
 * 
 * Français (Canada)
 * Français (France)
 * Deutsch (Deutschland)
 * हिंदी (भारत)
 * Italiano (Italia)
 * Português (Brasil)
 * Español (España)
 * Español (México)
 Use app
 * Cast & crew
 IMDbPro
 All topics

 Stealing the Show

 * 2021
 IMDb RATING
 8.9 / 10
 8
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 Play trailer 2 :01
 1 Video
 9 Photos

 A group of talented theater students must plan and execute the perfect heist in order to exonerate their beloved mentor of a crime he did not commit. A group of talented theater students must plan and execute the perfect heist in order to exonerate their beloved mentor of a crime he did not commit. A group of talented theater students must plan and execute the perfect heist in order to exonerate their beloved mentor of a crime he did not commit.

 * Director
 + Nathan Blair
 * Writer
 + Nathan Blair
 * Stars
 + Gigi Orsillo
 + Nathan Blair
 + Jewel Christian
 * See production info at IMDbPro
 IMDb RATING
 8.9 / 10
 8
 YOUR RATING
 Rate
 Top credits
 * Director
 + Nathan Blair
 * Writer
 + Nathan Blair
 * Stars
 + Gigi Orsillo
 + Nathan Blair
 + Jewel Christian
 * See production info at IMDbPro

 Videos 1

 Trailer 2:01
 Watch Stealing The Show trailer

 Photos 9

 Top cast

 Edit
 Gigi Orsillo
 * Cosette
 Nathan Blair
 * Agent Murphy
 Jewel Christian
 * Iona Graves
 Ashley Butler
 * Mia York
 Teagan Steller
 * Chloe Wilson
 Zach Tonkin
 * Isaac Joyner
 Angie Kalen
 * Phoebe
 Heath Arthur
 * Lazar Petrus
 Leland Klassen
 * A.J.
 Alexis Tonkin
 * Theater Student
 Kayla Blair
 * Samantha
 Jamaal Curry
 * Agent Harvey Collins
 Hunter Fine
 * Dodger
 Hannah Henson
 * Amber
 Kaleb Hiller
 * Tony
 Kassie Hiller
 * Sadie Mitchel
 Allison Lester
 * Anna
 Isabella McCollough
 * Annie
 * Director
 + Nathan Blair
 * Writer
 + Nathan Blair
 * All cast & crew
 * Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

 More like this

 6.5
 Sleeper Agent
 3.5
 Extraordinary
 7.7
 2nd Greatest

 Storyline

 Edit

 User reviews

 Be the first to review
 Be the first to review

 Top picks

 Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
 Sign in

 Details

 Edit
 * Release date
 + October 29, 2021 (United States)
 * Country of origin
 + United States
 * Official site
 + Fim Website
 * Language
 + English
 * Filming locations
 + Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA (Cheyenne, WY)
 * Production company
 + Cross Wind Productions
 * See more company credits at IMDbPro

 Technical specs

 Edit
 * Color
 + Color

 Related news

 Contribute to this page

 Suggest an edit or add missing content
 Top Gap
 By what name was Stealing the Show (2021) officially released in Canada in English?
 Answer
 * See more gaps
 * Learn more about contributing
 Edit page

 More to explore

 List
 Staff Picks: What to Watch in April
 See our picks
 List
 New and Upcoming Sci-Fi & Fantasy
 See the list
 List
 What We're Watching: Time Travel and Anime
 See the full list

 Recently viewed

 You have no recently viewed pages
 Get the IMDb app
 Sign in for more access Sign in for more access
 Follow IMDb on social
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Get the IMDb app
 For Android and iOS
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Help
 * Site Index
 * IMDbPro
 * Box Office Mojo
 * License IMDb Data
 * Press Room
 * Advertising
 * Jobs
 * Conditions of Use
 * Privacy Policy
 * Your Ads Privacy Choices

 © 1990-2024 by IMDb.com, Inc.

 Back to top
Cast &amp; crew       2021                         Videos                          Suggest an edit or add missing content        By what name was Stealing the Show (2021) officially released in Canada in English?  Answer             More to explore
Stealing the Show (2021) ⭐ 8.9
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14203866/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
2001-02-09
Authority control General VIAF
<div><div>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg"></a></p></div>
<p>The <b>Fourth Amendment</b> (<b>Amendment IV</b>) to the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Constitution">United States Constitution</a> is part of the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights">Bill of Rights</a>. It prohibits unreasonable <a href="/wiki/Search_and_seizure">searches and seizures</a>. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing <a href="/wiki/Warrant_(law)">warrants</a>: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by <a href="/wiki/Probable_cause">probable cause</a>, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
</p><p>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 to address violations of Fourth Amendment rights. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to physical intrusion of property or persons, but with <i><a href="/wiki/Katz_v._United_States">Katz v. United States</a></i> (1967), the <a href="/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States">Supreme Court</a> 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 <a href="/wiki/Consent_search">consent searches</a>, <a href="/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception">motor vehicle searches</a>, <a href="/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine">evidence in plain view</a>, <a href="/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law">exigent circumstances</a>, <a href="/wiki/Border_search_exception">border searches</a>, and other situations.
</p><p>The <a href="/wiki/Exclusionary_rule">exclusionary rule</a> is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in <i><a href="/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States">Weeks v. United States</a></i> (1914), this rule holds that <a href="/wiki/Evidence">evidence</a> obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally <a href="/wiki/Admissible_evidence">inadmissible</a> at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "<a href="/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree">fruit of the poisonous tree</a>." The exception is if it <a href="/wiki/Inevitable_discovery">inevitably would have been discovered by legal means</a>.
</p><p>The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by <a href="/wiki/James_Madison">James Madison</a>, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to <a href="/wiki/Anti-Federalist">Anti-Federalist</a> objections to the new Constitution. Congress <a href="/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposing_amendments">submitted</a> the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of the states had <a href="/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_of_amendments">ratified</a> it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State <a href="/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a> announced that it was officially part of the Constitution.
</p><p>Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to state or local governments, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The amendment was held to <a href="/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights">apply to state and local governments</a> in <i><a href="/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio">Mapp v. Ohio</a></i> (1961) via the <a href="/wiki/Due_Process_Clause">Due Process Clause</a> of the <a href="/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a>.
</p>
<h2>Text[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=1">edit</a>]</h2>
<blockquote><p><i>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects</i>,<sup><a href="#cite_note-2">[a]</a></sup> <i>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.</i><sup><a href="#cite_note-3">[2]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:Amendment_4.jpg"></a></p><div><p>The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to show just the text that would later be ratified as the Fourth Amendment</p></div></div>
<h2>Background[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=2">edit</a>]</h2>
<h3>English law[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=3">edit</a>]</h3>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:Charles_Pratt,_1st_Earl_Camden_by_Nathaniel_Dance,_(later_Sir_Nathaniel_Dance-Holland,_Bt).jpg"></a></p></div>
<p>Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its origin in English legal doctrine. In <i><a href="/wiki/Semayne%27s_case">Semayne's case</a></i> (1604), <a href="/wiki/Sir_Edward_Coke">Sir Edward Coke</a> famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."<sup><a href="#cite_note-4">[3]</a></sup> <i>Semayne's Case</i> acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings, but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKilmanCostello20061281–1282-5">[4]</a></sup>
</p><p>The 1760s saw a growth in the intensity of litigation against state officers, who using general warrants, conducted raids in search of materials relating to <a href="/wiki/John_Wilkes">John Wilkes</a>'s publications. The most famous of these cases involved <a href="/wiki/John_Entick">John Entick</a> whose home was forcibly entered by the <a href="/wiki/Queen%27s_Messenger">King's Messenger</a> Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by <a href="/wiki/George_Montagu-Dunk,_2nd_Earl_of_Halifax">George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax</a> authorizing them "to make strict and diligent search for ... the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers entitled, '<a href="/wiki/The_Monitor:_Or,_British_Freeholder">The Monitor or British Freeholder</a>, No 257, 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380'", the search resulting in seizure of printed charts, pamphlets and other materials. Entick filed suit in <i><a href="/wiki/Entick_v_Carrington">Entick v Carrington</a></i>, argued before the <a href="/wiki/Court_of_King%27s_Bench_(England)">Court of King's Bench</a> in 1765. <a href="/wiki/Charles_Pratt,_1st_Earl_Camden">Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden</a> ruled that both the search and the seizure were unlawful, as the warrant authorized the seizure of <i>all</i> of Entick's papers—not just the criminal ones—and as the warrant lacked <a href="/wiki/Probable_cause">probable cause</a> to even justify the search. By holding that "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave",<sup><a href="#cite_note-6">[5]</a></sup> <i>Entick</i> established the English precedent that the executive is limited in intruding on private property by <a href="/wiki/English_law#Common_law">common law</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKilmanCostello20061281–1282-5">[4]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Colonial America[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=4">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>Homes in <a href="/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States">Colonial America</a>, on the other hand, did not enjoy the same sanctity as their British counterparts, because legislation had been explicitly written so as to enable enforcement of British revenue-gathering policies on customs; until 1750, in fact, the only type of warrant defined in the handbooks for justices of the peace was the general warrant.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKilmanCostello20061281–1282-5">[4]</a></sup> During what scholar William Cuddihy called the "colonial epidemic of general searches", the authorities possessed almost unlimited power to search for anything at any time, with very little oversight.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELevy1995150-7">[6]</a></sup>
</p>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:JamesOtisJr_by_Blackburn.jpg"></a></p><div><p>Massachusetts lawyer <a href="/wiki/James_Otis,_Jr.">James Otis</a> protested British use of general warrants in the American colonies.</p></div></div>
<p>In 1756, the colony of Massachusetts barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs.<sup><a href="#cite_note-8">[7]</a></sup> The act also permitted the use of a general warrant known as a <a href="/wiki/Writ_of_assistance">writ of assistance</a>, allowing tax collectors to search the homes of colonists and seize "prohibited and uncustomed" goods.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDavies1999-9">[8]</a></sup>
A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27, 1760, when the news of <a href="/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain">King George II</a>'s death on October 23 arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King, and would have had to be re-issued by <a href="/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom">George III</a>, the new king, to remain valid.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWrothZobel1965113,_fn_22-10">[9]</a></sup>
</p><p>In mid-January 1761, a group of more than fifty merchants represented by <a href="/wiki/James_Otis,_Jr.">James Otis</a> petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five-hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced British colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWrothZobel1965113,_fn_23-11">[10]</a></sup> However, the court ruled against Otis.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELasson193757–61-12">[11]</a></sup> Future President <a href="/wiki/John_Adams">John Adams</a>, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events as "the spark in which originated the American Revolution".<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEAdamsAdams185659-13">[12]</a></sup>
</p><p>Because of the name he had made for himself in attacking the writs, Otis was elected to the <a href="/wiki/Massachusetts_General_Court">Massachusetts colonial legislature</a> and helped pass legislation requiring that special writs of assistance be "granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs" and barring all other writs. The governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to English law and parliamentary sovereignty.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELasson193766-14">[13]</a></sup>
</p><p>Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the <a href="/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights">Virginia Declaration of Rights</a> (1776) explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became a precedent for the Fourth Amendment:<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELevy1995161-15">[14]</a></sup>
</p>
<blockquote><p>That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELevy1995161-15">[14]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, written by <a href="/wiki/John_Adams">John Adams</a> and enacted in 1780 as part of <a href="/wiki/Constitution_of_Massachusetts">the Massachusetts Constitution</a>, added the requirement that all searches must be "reasonable", and served as another basis for the language of the Fourth Amendment:<sup><a href="#cite_note-16">[15]</a></sup>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.<sup><a href="#cite_note-17">[16]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>By 1784, eight state constitutions contained a provision against general warrants.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Cuddihy-18">[17]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Proposal and ratification[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=5">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>After several years of comparatively weak government under the <a href="/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation">Articles of Confederation</a>, a <a href="/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)">Constitutional Convention</a> in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring a stronger chief executive and other changes. <a href="/wiki/George_Mason">George Mason</a>, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing <a href="/wiki/Civil_liberties">civil liberties</a> be included. Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter <a href="/wiki/James_Madison">James Madison</a>—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked implying that other, unnamed rights were unprotected. After a brief debate, Mason's proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBeeman2009341–43-19">[18]</a></sup>
</p><p>For the Constitution to be ratified, nine of the thirteen states were required to approve it in state conventions. Opposition to ratification ("Anti-Federalism") was partly based on the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Supporters of the Constitution in states where popular sentiment was against ratification (including Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York) successfully proposed that their state conventions both ratify the Constitution and call for the addition of a bill of rights.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMaier2010431-20">[19]</a></sup> Four state conventions proposed some form of restriction on the authority of the new federal government to conduct searches.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Cuddihy-18">[17]</a></sup>
</p>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:James_Madison.jpg"></a></p></div>
<p>In the <a href="/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress">1st United States Congress</a>, following the state legislatures' request, James Madison proposed twenty constitutional amendments based on state bills of rights and English sources such as the <a href="/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689">Bill of Rights 1689</a>, including an amendment requiring probable cause for government searches. Congress reduced Madison's proposed twenty amendments to twelve, with modifications to Madison's language about searches and seizures.<sup><a href="#cite_note-21">[20]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-22">[21]</a></sup> The final language was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789.<sup><a href="#cite_note-23">[22]</a></sup>
</p><p>By the time the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, opinions had shifted in both parties. Many Federalists, who had previously opposed a Bill of Rights, now supported the Bill as a means of silencing the Anti-Federalists' most effective criticism. Many Anti-Federalists, in contrast, now opposed it, realizing the Bill's adoption would greatly lessen the chances of a second constitutional convention, which they desired.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWood200971-24">[23]</a></sup> Anti-Federalists such as <a href="/wiki/Richard_Henry_Lee">Richard Henry Lee</a> also argued that the Bill left the most objectionable portions of the Constitution, such as the federal judiciary and <a href="/wiki/Direct_taxation">direct taxation</a>, intact.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Levy-25">[24]</a></sup>
</p><p>On November 20, 1789, New Jersey ratified eleven of the twelve amendments, including the Fourth. On December 19, 1789, December 22, 1789, and January 19, 1790, respectively, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina ratified all twelve amendments.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELabunski2006245-26">[25]</a></sup> On January 25 and 28, 1790, respectively, New Hampshire and Delaware ratified eleven of the Bill's twelve amendments, including the Fourth.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELabunski2006245-26">[25]</a></sup> This brought the total of ratifying states to six of the required ten, but the process stalled in other states: Connecticut and Georgia found a Bill of Rights unnecessary and so refused to ratify, while Massachusetts ratified most of the amendments, but failed to send official notice to the Secretary of State that it had done so (all three states would later ratify the Bill of Rights for sesquicentennial celebrations in 1939).<sup><a href="#cite_note-Levy-25">[24]</a></sup>
</p><p>In February through June 1790, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island each ratified eleven of the amendments, including the Fourth. Virginia initially postponed its debate, but after Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791, the total number of states needed for ratification rose to eleven. Vermont ratified on November 3, 1791, approving all twelve amendments, and Virginia finally followed on December 15, 1791.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Levy-25">[24]</a></sup> Secretary of State <a href="/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a> announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELabunski2006255-27">[26]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Applicability[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=6">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history.<sup><a href="#cite_note-19610306JUSSCC-28">[27]</a></sup> The Bill of Rights originally restricted only the <a href="/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States">federal government</a>, and went through a long initial phase of "judicial dormancy;"<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELabunski2006258–59-29">[28]</a></sup> in the words of historian <a href="/wiki/Gordon_S._Wood">Gordon S. Wood</a>, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution."<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWood200972-30">[29]</a></sup> Federal jurisdiction regarding criminal law was narrow until the late 19th century when the <a href="/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Act">Interstate Commerce Act</a> and <a href="/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act">Sherman Antitrust Act</a> were passed. As federal criminal jurisdiction expanded to include other areas such as <a href="/wiki/Narcotic">narcotics</a>, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the <a href="/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States">U.S. Supreme Court</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELasson1937106-31">[30]</a></sup> The Supreme Court responded to these questions by stating on the one hand that the government powers to search and seizure are limited by the Fourth Amendment so that arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals are prevented<sup><a href="#cite_note-32">[31]</a></sup> and by outlining on the other hand the fundamental purpose of the amendment as guaranteeing "the privacy, dignity and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government, without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function".<sup><a href="#cite_note-Ontario_v._Quon-33">[32]</a></sup> To protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State is the overriding function of the Fourth Amendment according to the Court in <i><a href="/wiki/Schmerber_v._California">Schmerber v. California</a></i> (1966),<sup><a href="#cite_note-34">[33]</a></sup> because "[t]he security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police" is "at the core of the Fourth Amendment" and "basic to a free society."<sup><a href="#cite_note-35">[34]</a></sup> Pointing to historic precedents like <i><a href="/wiki/Entick_v_Carrington">Entick v Carrington</a></i> (1765) and <i><a href="/wiki/Boyd_v._United_States">Boyd v. United States</a></i> (1886), the Supreme Court held in <i><a href="/wiki/Silverman_v._United_States">Silverman v. United States</a></i> (1961) that the Fourth Amendments core is the right to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.<sup><a href="#cite_note-19610306JUSSCC-28">[27]</a></sup> With a view to <i><a href="/wiki/Camara_v._Municipal_Court_of_City_and_County_of_San_Francisco">Camara v. Municipal Court</a></i> (1967)<sup><a href="#cite_note-36">[35]</a></sup> the Supreme Court observed in <i><a href="/wiki/Torres_v._Madrid">Torres v. Madrid</a></i> (2021) that the focus of the Fourth Amendment is the privacy and security of individuals, not the particular manner of arbitrary invasion by governmental officials.<sup><a href="#cite_note-37">[36]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio">Mapp v. Ohio</a></i> (1961),<sup><a href="#cite_note-Mapp-38">[37]</a></sup> the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment <a href="/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights">applies to the states</a> by way of the <a href="/wiki/Due_Process_Clause">Due Process Clause</a> of the <a href="/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-39">[38]</a></sup>
</p>
<div>
<blockquote>
<p>The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><cite>--<a href="/wiki/Supreme_Court_Justice">Justice</a> <a href="/wiki/William_R._Day">William R. Day</a> in the Opinion of the Court in <i><a href="/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States">Weeks v. United States</a></i> (1914).<sup><a href="#cite_note-40">[39]</a></sup></cite>
</p>
</div>
<p>Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure;" what constitutes <a href="/wiki/Probable_cause">probable cause</a> for these actions; how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Arenella-41">[40]</a></sup>
</p><p>"The Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine involves a complex compromise between public safety and the constitutional right to personal liberty."<sup><a href="#cite_note-42">[41]</a></sup><b><sup>: 1669 </sup></b> The Fourth Amendment typically requires "a neutral and detached authority interposed between the police and the public", and it is offended by "general warrants" and laws that allow searches to be conducted "indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with [a] crime under investigation",<sup><a href="#cite_note-43">[42]</a></sup> for the "basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of 'unreasonable' searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials."<sup><a href="#cite_note-44">[43]</a></sup>
</p><p>The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that a search or an arrest generally requires a judicially sanctioned <a href="/wiki/Warrant_(law)">warrant</a>, because the basic rule under the Fourth Amendment is that arrests and "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are <i>per se</i> unreasonable".<sup><a href="#cite_note-45">[44]</a></sup> In order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable, it must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has <a href="/wiki/Affidavit">sworn by it</a> and is therefore <a href="/wiki/Perjury">accountable to the issuing court</a>. The Supreme Court further held in <i><a href="/wiki/Chandler_v._Miller">Chandler v. Miller</a></i> (1997): "To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on 'special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement'. ... When such 'special needs' are alleged, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties."<sup><a href="#cite_note-46">[45]</a></sup> The amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.<sup><a href="#cite_note-47">[46]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Ontario_v._Quon">Ontario v. Quon</a></i> (2010), the Court applied the amendment to a municipal government in its capacity as an employer, ruling that the City of Ontario had not violated the Fourth Amendment rights of city police officers by obtaining from the communications company and reviewing transcripts of text messages sent using government-provided pagers.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Ontario_v._Quon-33">[32]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-48">[47]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Search[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=7">edit</a>]</h3>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:US_Supreme_Court_Justice_Potter_Stewart_-_1976_official_portrait.jpg"></a></p></div>
<p>One threshold question in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's <a href="/wiki/Property_rights">property rights</a>—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, has occurred. Early 20th-century Court decisions, such as <i><a href="/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States">Olmstead v. United States</a></i> (1928), held that Fourth Amendment rights applied in cases of physical intrusion, but not to other forms of police surveillance (e.g., wiretaps).<sup><a href="#cite_note-Katz-49">[48]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Silverman_v._United_States">Silverman v. United States</a></i> (1961), the Court stated of the amendment that "at the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion".<sup><a href="#cite_note-50">[49]</a></sup>
</p><p>Fourth Amendment protections expanded significantly with <i><a href="/wiki/Katz_v._United_States">Katz v. United States</a></i> (1967).<sup><a href="#cite_note-Katz-49">[48]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-51">[50]</a></sup> In <i>Katz</i>, the Supreme Court expanded that focus to embrace an individual's <a href="/wiki/Right_to_privacy">right to privacy</a>, and ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a <a href="/wiki/Telephone_booth">telephone booth</a> using a microphone attached to the outside of the glass. While there was no physical intrusion into the booth, the Court reasoned that: 1) Katz, by entering the booth and shutting the door behind him, had exhibited his expectation that "the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world"; and 2) society believes that his expectation was <a href="/wiki/Reasonable_person">reasonable</a>. Justice <a href="/wiki/Potter_Stewart">Potter Stewart</a> wrote in the majority opinion that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places".<sup><a href="#cite_note-52">[51]</a></sup> A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy".<sup><a href="#cite_note-53">[52]</a></sup> Katz's reasonable <a href="/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy">expectation of privacy</a> thus provided the basis to rule that the government's intrusion, though electronic rather than physical, was a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, and thus necessitated a warrant.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Katz-49">[48]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-Lure-54">[53]</a></sup> The Court said it was not recognizing any general right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment,<sup><a href="#cite_note-55">[54]</a></sup> and that this wiretap could have been authorized if proper procedures had been followed.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Lure-54">[53]</a></sup>
</p><p>This decision in <i>Katz</i> was later developed into the now commonly used two-prong test, adopted in <i><a href="/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland">Smith v. Maryland</a></i> (1979),<sup><a href="#cite_note-Smith_v._Maryland-56">[55]</a></sup> for determining whether a search has occurred for purposes of the Fourth Amendment:<sup><a href="#cite_note-57">[56]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-58">[57]</a></sup>
</p>
<ol><li>a person "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy"; and</li>
<li>society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.</li></ol>
<p>The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily shared with third parties.<sup><a href="#cite_note-59">[58]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-60">[59]</a></sup> In <i>Smith</i>, the Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Smith_v._Maryland-56">[55]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-61">[60]</a></sup> However, under <i><a href="/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States">Carpenter v. United States</a></i> (2018), individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding cell phone records even though they themselves turned over that information to "third parties" (i.e. the cell phone companies). Prior to the Carpenter ruling, law enforcement was able to retrieve cell site location information (CSLI) that included where a cell phone user had traveled over many months and with which other cell phone users they had associated. Carpenter v. United States serves as a landmark case because it slightly narrowed the Third Party Doctrine, thus requiring law enforcement to first obtain a search warrant before receiving CSLI records.<sup><a href="#cite_note-62">[61]</a></sup> "In the 5-4 [Carpenter] decision, the Court ruled 'narrowly' in favor of privacy, finding the government had constitutionally violated Mr. Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy by acquiring this private information without a warrant."
</p><p>Following <i>Katz</i>, the vast majority of Fourth Amendment search cases have turned on the right to privacy, but in <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)">United States v. Jones</a></i> (2012), the Court ruled that the <i>Katz</i> standard did not replace earlier case law, but rather, has supplemented it.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Jones2012-63">[62]</a></sup> In <i>Jones</i>, law enforcement officers had attached a <a href="/wiki/Global_Positioning_System">GPS</a> device on a car's exterior without Jones' knowledge or consent. The Court concluded that Jones was a <a href="/wiki/Bailment">bailee</a> to the car, and so had a property interest in the car.<sup><a href="#cite_note-64">[63]</a></sup> Therefore, since the intrusion on the vehicle—a common law <a href="/wiki/Trespass">trespass</a>—was for the purpose of obtaining information, the Court ruled that it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court used similar "trespass" reasoning in <i><a href="/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines">Florida v. Jardines</a></i> (2013), to rule that bringing a drug <a href="/wiki/Detection_dog">detection dog</a> to sniff at the front door of a home was a search.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Jardines-65">[64]</a></sup>
</p><p>In certain situations, law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest. Under <i><a href="/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio">Terry v. Ohio</a></i> (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In <i>Terry</i>, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads the officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon <i>and</i> that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a pat-down search ("frisk" the person) to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon.<sup><a href="#cite_note-66">[65]</a></sup> This detention and search is known as a <a href="/wiki/Terry_stop"><i>Terry</i> stop</a>. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions.<sup><a href="#cite_note-67">[66]</a></sup> As established in <i><a href="/wiki/Florida_v._Royer">Florida v. Royer</a></i> (1983), such a search must be temporary, and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as contraband).<sup><a href="#cite_note-Royer-68">[67]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-Royer2-69">[68]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Seizure[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=8">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its <a href="/wiki/Curtilage">curtilage</a>) or <a href="/wiki/Personal_property">personal property</a> without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property,"<sup><a href="#cite_note-70">[69]</a></sup> such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence, or when they participate in an eviction.<sup><a href="#cite_note-71">[70]</a></sup> The amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of persons, including a <a href="/wiki/Detention_(imprisonment)">brief detention</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-United_States_v._Mendenhall-72">[71]</a></sup>
</p><p>A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Royer-68">[67]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-73">[72]</a></sup> The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds.<sup><a href="#cite_note-United_States_v._Mendenhall-72">[71]</a></sup>
</p><p>In <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Mendenhall">United States v. Mendenhall</a></i> (1980), the Court held that a person is seized only when, by means of physical force <i>or</i> show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained and, in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave.<sup><a href="#cite_note-United_States_v._Mendenhall-72">[71]</a></sup> Under <i><a href="/wiki/Torres_v._Madrid">Torres v. Madrid</a></i> (2021), a person is considered to be seized following the use of physical force with the intent to restrain, even if the person manages to escape. In <i><a href="/wiki/Florida_v._Bostick">Florida v. Bostick</a></i> (1991), the Court ruled that as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the police contact is a "citizen encounter" that falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment.<sup><a href="#cite_note-74">[73]</a></sup> If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no seizure and therefore no intrusion upon the person's privacy under the Fourth Amendment.<sup><a href="#cite_note-United_States_v._Mendenhall-72">[71]</a></sup>
</p><p>When a person is arrested and taken into police custody, he has been seized (i.e., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine <a href="/wiki/Traffic_stop">traffic stop</a> on the other hand, has been seized, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a <a href="/wiki/Terry_stop"><i>Terry</i> stop</a> than to a formal arrest.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Knowles_v._Iowa-75">[74]</a></sup> If a person is not under suspicion of illegal behavior, a law enforcement official is not allowed to place an individual under arrest simply because this person does not wish to state his identity, provided specific state regulations do not specify this to be the case.<sup><a href="#cite_note-76">[75]</a></sup> A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, so long as the arresting officer has probable cause.<sup><a href="#cite_note-77">[76]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-78">[77]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Maryland_v._King">Maryland v. King</a></i> (2013), the Court upheld the constitutionality of police swabbing for <a href="/wiki/Genetic_testing">DNA</a> upon arrests for serious crimes, along the same reasoning that allows police to take fingerprints or photographs of those they arrest and detain.<sup><a href="#cite_note-79">[78]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-80">[79]</a></sup>
</p>
<h4>Exceptions[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=9">edit</a>]</h4>
<p>The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions. In <i><a href="/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse">Delaware v. Prouse</a></i> (1979), the Court ruled an officer has made an illegal seizure when he stops an automobile and detains the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile, because the officer does not have articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law.<sup><a href="#cite_note-81">[80]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-82">[81]</a></sup>
</p><p>Where society's need is great, no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, certain discretionless checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte">United States v. Martinez-Fuerte</a></i> (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints.<sup><a href="#cite_note-83">[82]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz">Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz</a></i> (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints.<sup><a href="#cite_note-84">[83]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Lidster">Illinois v. Lidster</a></i> (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints.<sup><a href="#cite_note-85">[84]</a></sup> However, in <i><a href="/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond">City of Indianapolis v. Edmond</a></i> (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.<sup><a href="#cite_note-86">[85]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Warrant[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=10">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified <a href="/wiki/Magistrate">magistrate</a>, to lawfully search and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a <a href="/wiki/Writ">writ</a> known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional if conducted without a valid warrant<sup><a href="#cite_note-87">[86]</a></sup> and the police must obtain a warrant whenever practicable.<sup><a href="#cite_note-88">[87]</a></sup> Searches and seizures without a warrant are not considered unreasonable if one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Katz-49">[48]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-89">[88]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-TLO-90">[89]</a></sup> These exceptions apply "[o]nly in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable."<sup><a href="#cite_note-91">[90]</a></sup>
</p><p>In these situations where the warrant requirement doesn't apply a search or seizure nonetheless must be justified by some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.<sup><a href="#cite_note-92">[91]</a></sup> However, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception to the requirement of individualized suspicion. It ruled that, "In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion" a search [or seizure] would still be reasonable.<sup><a href="#cite_note-93">[92]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Probable cause[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=11">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>The standards of probable cause<sup><a href="#cite_note-94">[93]</a></sup> differ for an arrest and a search. The government has probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.<sup><a href="#cite_note-95">[94]</a></sup> Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.<sup><a href="#cite_note-96">[95]</a></sup>
</p><p>When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establish probable cause to believe the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In <i><a href="/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States">Carroll v. United States</a></i> (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Carroll-97">[96]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-98">[97]</a></sup> To that end, the Court ruled in <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Dumbra_v._United_States&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Dumbra v. United States</a></i> (1925) that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation,"<sup><a href="#cite_note-99">[98]</a></sup> reiterating <i>Carroll</i>'s assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.<sup><a href="#cite_note-100">[99]</a></sup> It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, non-technical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.<sup><a href="#cite_note-101">[100]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Gates">Illinois v. Gates</a></i> (1983), the Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "<a href="/wiki/Totality_of_the_circumstances">totality of the circumstances</a>."<sup><a href="#cite_note-102">[101]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Exceptions to the warrant requirement[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=12">edit</a>]</h2>
<h3>Consent[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=13">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>If a <a href="/wiki/Party_(law)">party</a> gives consent to a search, a warrant is not required. There are exceptions and complications to the rule, including the scope of the consent given, whether the consent is voluntarily given, and whether an individual has the right to consent to a search of another's property.<sup><a href="#cite_note-103">[102]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Schneckloth_v._Bustamonte">Schneckloth v. Bustamonte</a></i> (1973), the Court ruled that a consent search is still valid even if the police do not inform a suspect of his right to refuse the search.<sup><a href="#cite_note-104">[103]</a></sup> This contrasts with <a href="/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fifth Amendment rights</a>, which cannot be relinquished without an explicit <a href="/wiki/Miranda_warning"><i>Miranda</i> warning</a> from police.<sup><a href="#cite_note-105">[104]</a></sup>
</p><p>The Court stated in <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Matlock">United States v. Matlock</a></i> (1974) that a third party co-occupant could give consent for a search without violating a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.<sup><a href="#cite_note-106">[105]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-Crawford-107">[106]</a></sup> However, in <i><a href="/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph">Georgia v. Randolph</a></i> (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that when two co-occupants are both present, one consenting and the other rejecting the search of a shared residence, the police may not make a search of that residence within the consent exception to the warrant requirement.<sup><a href="#cite_note-108">[107]</a></sup> Per the Court's ruling in <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Rodriguez">Illinois v. Rodriguez</a></i> (1990),<sup><a href="#cite_note-109">[108]</a></sup> a consent search is still considered valid if police accept in good faith the consent of an "apparent authority," even if that party is later discovered to not have authority over the property in question.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Crawford-107">[106]</a></sup> A telling case on this subject is <i>Stoner v. California</i>, in which the Court held that police officers could not rely in good faith upon the apparent authority of a hotel clerk to consent to the search of a guest's room.<sup><a href="#cite_note-110">[109]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Plain view and open fields[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=14">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>According to the plain view doctrine as defined in <i><a href="/wiki/Coolidge_v._New_Hampshire">Coolidge v. New Hampshire</a></i> (1971),<sup><a href="#cite_note-111">[110]</a></sup> if an officer is lawfully present, he may seize objects that are in "plain view." However, the officer must have had probable cause to believe the objects are contraband.<sup><a href="#cite_note-112">[111]</a></sup> What's more, the criminality of the object in plain view must be obvious by its very nature. In <i><a href="/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks">Arizona v. Hicks</a></i>, the Supreme Court held that an officer stepped beyond the plain view doctrine when he moved a turntable in order to view its serial number to confirm that the turntable was stolen.<sup><a href="#cite_note-113">[112]</a></sup> "A search is a search," proclaimed the Court, "even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."<sup><a href="#cite_note-114">[113]</a></sup>
</p><p>Similarly, "open fields" such as pastures, open water, and woods may be searched without a warrant, on the ground that conduct occurring therein would have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The doctrine was first articulated by the Court in <i><a href="/wiki/Hester_v._United_States">Hester v. United States</a></i> (1924), which stated that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' is not extended to the open fields."<sup><a href="#cite_note-115">[114]</a></sup>
</p><p>In <i><a href="/wiki/Oliver_v._United_States">Oliver v. United States</a></i> (1984),<sup><a href="#cite_note-116">[115]</a></sup> the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign and a fence, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path for hundreds of feet, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place, because there was no privacy expectation regarding an open field:
</p>
<blockquote><p>open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.<sup><a href="#cite_note-117">[116]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the <a href="/wiki/Curtilage">curtilage</a>, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person's home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment. The curtilage is "intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically", and is where "privacy expectations are most heightened."<sup><a href="#cite_note-118">[117]</a></sup> However, courts have held aerial surveillance of curtilage not to be included in the protections from unwarranted search so long as the airspace above the curtilage is generally accessible by the public. An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."<sup><a href="#cite_note-119">[118]</a></sup> Courts make this determination by examining "whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."<sup><a href="#cite_note-120">[119]</a></sup> The Court has acknowledged that a doorbell or knocker is typically treated as an invitation, or license, to the public to approach the front door of the home to deliver mail, sell goods, solicit for charities, etc. This license extends to the police, who have the right to try engaging a home's occupant in a "<a href="/wiki/Knock_and_talk">knock and talk</a>" for the purpose of gathering evidence without a warrant. However, they cannot bring a drug detection dog to sniff at the front door of a home without either a warrant or consent of the homeowner or resident.<sup><a href="#cite_note-121">[120]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Exigent circumstance[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=15">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>Law enforcement officers may also conduct warrantless searches in several types of exigent circumstances where obtaining a warrant is dangerous or impractical. Under <i><a href="/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio">Terry v. Ohio</a></i> (1968) police are permitted to frisk suspects for weapons.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exigent-122">[121]</a></sup> The Court also allowed a search of arrested persons in <i>Weeks v. United States</i> (1914) to preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed and to ensure suspects were disarmed.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exigent-122">[121]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-Weeks-123">[122]</a></sup> In <i>Carroll v. United States</i> (1925),<sup><a href="#cite_note-Carroll-97">[96]</a></sup> the Court ruled that law enforcement officers could search a vehicle that they suspected of carrying contraband without a warrant.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exigent-122">[121]</a></sup> The Court allowed blood to be drawn without a warrant from drunk-driving suspects in <i><a href="/wiki/Schmerber_v._California">Schmerber v. California</a></i> (1966) on the grounds that the time to obtain a warrant would allow a suspect's <a href="/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content">blood alcohol content</a> to reduce,<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exigent-122">[121]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-124">[123]</a></sup> although this was later modified by <i><a href="/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely">Missouri v. McNeely</a></i> (2013).<sup><a href="#cite_note-125">[124]</a></sup> <i><a href="/wiki/Warden_v._Hayden">Warden v. Hayden</a></i> (1967) provided an exception to the warrant requirement if officers were in "hot pursuit" of a suspect.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exigent-122">[121]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-126">[125]</a></sup>
</p><p>A subset of exigent circumstances is the debated community caretaking exception.<sup><a href="#cite_note-127">[126]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-128">[127]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Motor vehicle[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=16">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>The Supreme Court has held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because (1) vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects, and (2) vehicles "can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought."<sup><a href="#cite_note-129">[128]</a></sup> Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in plain view may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause to believe evidence is present, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. However, they may not extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers or consent from the passengers.<sup><a href="#cite_note-130">[129]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Collins_v._Virginia">Collins v. Virginia</a></i> (2018),<sup><a href="#cite_note-131">[130]</a></sup> the Court ruled that the motor vehicle exception did not apply to searches of vehicles parked within a residence's <a href="/wiki/Curtilage">curtilage</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-132">[131]</a></sup>
</p><p>In <i><a href="/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant">Arizona v. Gant</a></i> (2009),<sup><a href="#cite_note-133">[132]</a></sup> the Court ruled that a law enforcement officer needs a warrant before searching a motor vehicle after an arrest of an occupant of that vehicle, unless 1) at the time of the search the person being arrested is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle or 2) police officers have reason to believe evidence for the crime for which the person is being arrested will be found in the vehicle.<sup><a href="#cite_note-134">[133]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Searches incident to a lawful arrest[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=17">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>A <a href="/wiki/Common_law">common law</a> rule from Great Britain permits searches incident to an arrest without a warrant. This rule has been applied in American law, and has a lengthy common law history.<sup><a href="#cite_note-135">[134]</a></sup> The justification for such a search is to prevent the arrested individual 1.) from destroying evidence or 2.) using a weapon against the arresting officer by disarming the suspect.<sup><a href="#cite_note-136">[135]</a></sup> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply" when "there is no possibility" the suspect could gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence.<sup><a href="#cite_note-137">[136]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Trupiano_v._United_States">Trupiano v. United States</a></i> (1948), the Supreme Court held that "a search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest."<sup><a href="#cite_note-138">[137]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Rabinowitz">United States v. Rabinowitz</a></i> (1950), the Court reversed <i>Trupiano</i>, holding instead that the officers' opportunity to obtain a warrant was not germane to the reasonableness of a search incident to an arrest. <i>Rabinowitz</i> suggested that any area within the "immediate control" of the arrestee could be searched, but it did not define the term.<sup><a href="#cite_note-139">[138]</a></sup> In deciding <i><a href="/wiki/Chimel_v._California">Chimel v. California</a></i> (1969), the Supreme Court elucidated its previous decisions. It held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the officer to search the arrestee for weapons and evidence.<sup><a href="#cite_note-140">[139]</a></sup> However, in <i><a href="/wiki/Riley_v._California">Riley v. California</a></i> (2014), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrestee's cellular phone.<sup><a href="#cite_note-141">[140]</a></sup> The Court said that earlier Supreme Court decisions permitting searches incident to an arrest without a warrant do not apply to "modern cellphones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy," and noted that U.S. citizens' cellphones today typically contain "a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane to the intimate."<sup><a href="#cite_note-142">[141]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-143">[142]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Border search exception[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=18">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the border search exception.<sup><a href="#cite_note-144">[143]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-145">[144]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-Upright-146">[145]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-147">[146]</a></sup> Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to <a href="/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection">U.S. Customs and Border Protection</a> plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion".<sup><a href="#cite_note-Upright-146">[145]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-148">[147]</a></sup> The <a href="/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals">U.S. Courts of Appeals</a> for the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit">Fourth</a> and <a href="/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit">Ninth</a> circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Upright-146">[145]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-149">[148]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-150">[149]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Foreign intelligence surveillance[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=19">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>The Supreme Court decision in <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._U.S._District_Court">United States v. U.S. District Court</a></i> (1972)<sup><a href="#cite_note-151">[150]</a></sup> left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Lawfare20130523-152">[151]</a></sup> Three United States Courts of Appeals have recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause, but tied it to certain requirements.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Lawfare20130523-152">[151]</a></sup> The exception to the Fourth Amendment was formally recognized by the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court_of_Review">United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review</a> in its 2008 <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court_of_Review#In_re_Directives">In re Directives</a></i><sup><a href="#cite_note-Seyla20080822-153">[152]</a></sup> decision.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Lawfare20130522-154">[153]</a></sup> The lower court held that "a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States."<sup><a href="#cite_note-Lawfare20130522-154">[153]</a></sup>
</p><p>Despite the foregoing citation the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures nonetheless apply to the contents of all communications, whatever the means, because, "a person's private communications are akin to personal papers."<sup><a href="#cite_note-FiscPrivacyRuling2011-155">[154]</a></sup> Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the point at which the United States government's interest advanced by a particular search or seizure outweighs the loss of individual privacy or freedom of movement that attends the government's action.<sup><a href="#cite_note-20060130CSRDoyle76006-156">[155]</a></sup> The United Supreme Court said in <i><a href="/wiki/Board_of_Education_v._Earls">Board of Education v. Earls</a></i> (2002)<sup><a href="#cite_note-157">[156]</a></sup> when 'special needs', beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable the reasonableness of a search is determined by balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.<sup><a href="#cite_note-20060130CSRDoyle76006-156">[155]</a></sup> Additionally in <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Lidster">Illinois v. Lidster</a></i> (2004)<sup><a href="#cite_note-158">[157]</a></sup> the Court explained in judging reasonableness it looks to "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty".<sup><a href="#cite_note-20060130CSRDoyle76006-156">[155]</a></sup> To protect the <a href="/wiki/Telecommunication">telecommunication</a> carriers cooperating with the U.S. government from legal action, the Congress passed <a href="/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008">a bill</a> updating the <a href="/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</a> of 1978 to permit this type of surveillance.<sup><a href="#cite_note-159">[158]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Schools and prisons[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=20">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>In <i><a href="/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.">New Jersey v. T. L. O.</a></i> (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that searches in <a href="/wiki/Public_education">public schools</a> do not require warrants, as long as the searching officers have reasonable grounds for believing the search will result in finding evidence of illegal activity.<sup><a href="#cite_note-TLO-90">[89]</a></sup> Similarly, in <i><a href="/wiki/Samson_v._California">Samson v. California</a></i> (2006), the Court ruled that government offices may be searched for evidence of work-related misconduct by government employees on similar grounds.<sup><a href="#cite_note-160">[159]</a></sup> Searches of prison cells are subject to no restraints relating to reasonableness or probable cause.<sup><a href="#cite_note-161">[160]</a></sup> However, in <i><a href="/wiki/Safford_Unified_School_District_v._Redding">Safford Unified School District v. Redding</a></i> (2009),<sup><a href="#cite_note-162">[161]</a></sup> the Court ruled that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when they <a href="/wiki/Strip_searched">strip searched</a> a student based only on another student's claiming to have received drugs from her.<sup><a href="#cite_note-163">[162]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Exclusionary rule[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=21">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>One way courts enforce the Fourth Amendment is through the use of the exclusionary rule. The rule provides that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally not <a href="/wiki/Admissible_evidence">admissible</a> by the prosecution during the defendant's criminal trial.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exclusionary-164">[163]</a></sup> The Court stated in <i><a href="/wiki/Elkins_v._United_States">Elkins v. United States</a></i> (1960)<sup><a href="#cite_note-165">[164]</a></sup> that the rule's function "is to deter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it."<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exclusionary-164">[163]</a></sup>
</p><p>The Court adopted the exclusionary rule in <i><a href="/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States">Weeks v. United States</a></i> (1914),<sup><a href="#cite_note-Weeks-123">[122]</a></sup> prior to which all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court.<sup><a href="#cite_note-166">[165]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._United_States">Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States</a></i> (1920)<sup><a href="#cite_note-167">[166]</a></sup> and <i><a href="/wiki/Nardone_v._United_States">Nardone v. United States</a></i> (1939),<sup><a href="#cite_note-168">[167]</a></sup> the Court ruled that leads or other evidence resulting from illegally obtained evidence are also inadmissible in trials. Justice <a href="/wiki/Felix_Frankfurter">Felix Frankfurter</a> described this secondary evidence in the <i>Nardone</i> decision as the "<a href="/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree">fruit of the poisonous tree</a>".<sup><a href="#cite_note-169">[168]</a></sup> The Supreme Court rejected incorporating the exclusionary rule by way of the Fourteenth Amendment in <i><a href="/wiki/Wolf_v._Colorado">Wolf v. Colorado</a></i> (1949),<sup><a href="#cite_note-170">[169]</a></sup> but <i>Wolf</i> was explicitly overruled in <i>Mapp v. Ohio</i> (1961),<sup><a href="#cite_note-Mapp-38">[37]</a></sup> making the Fourth Amendment (including the exclusionary rule) applicable in state proceedings.<sup><a href="#cite_note-171">[170]</a></sup>
</p><p>The exclusionary rule and its effectiveness have often been controversial, particularly since its 1961 application to state proceedings. Critics charge that the rule hampers police investigation and can result in freeing guilty parties convicted on reliable evidence; other critics say the rule has not been successful in deterring illegal police searches. Proponents argue that the number of criminal convictions overturned under the rule has been minimal and that no other effective mechanism exists to enforce the Fourth Amendment.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exclusionary-164">[163]</a></sup> In 1982, <a href="/wiki/California">California</a> passed a "<a href="/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(1982)">Victim's Bill of Rights</a>" containing a provision to repeal the exclusionary rule; though the bill could not affect federally mandated rights under the Fourth Amendment, it blocked the state courts from expanding these protections further.<sup><a href="#cite_note-172">[171]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTECrisera19901587-173">[172]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Limitations[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=22">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>Since 1974, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the exclusionary rule.<sup><a href="#cite_note-Exclusionary-164">[163]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Calandra&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">United States v. Calandra</a></i> (1974),<sup><a href="#cite_note-174">[173]</a></sup> the Court ruled that <a href="/wiki/Grand_juries">grand juries</a> may use illegally obtained evidence when questioning witnesses, because "the damage to that institution from the unprecedented extension of the exclusionary rule outweighs the benefit of any possible incremental deterrent effect."<sup><a href="#cite_note-175">[174]</a></sup> Explaining the purpose of the rule, the Court said the rule "is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved."<sup><a href="#cite_note-176">[175]</a></sup>
</p><p>Three cases in 1984 further restricted the exclusionary rule:
</p>
<ul><li>In <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Leon">United States v. Leon</a></i> (1984),<sup><a href="#cite_note-177">[176]</a></sup> the Court established the "good faith" exception to the rule, ruling that evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant was still admissible, even though the warrant was later found to be defective, unless an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepared an affidavit to seek a warrant, the issuing magistrate abandoned his neutrality, or the warrant lacked sufficient particularity.<sup><a href="#cite_note-178">[177]</a></sup></li>
<li>The Court determined in <i><a href="/wiki/Nix_v._Williams">Nix v. Williams</a></i> (1984)<sup><a href="#cite_note-179">[178]</a></sup> that "fruit of the poisonous tree" evidence could still be introduced if a prosecutor could demonstrate that it would have been an "inevitable discovery" of legitimate investigation.<sup><a href="#cite_note-180">[179]</a></sup></li>
<li>In <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Segura_v._United_States&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Segura v. United States</a></i> (1984),<sup><a href="#cite_note-181">[180]</a></sup> the Court ruled that evidence illegally found without a search warrant is admissible if the evidence is later found and legally seized based on information independent of the illegal search.<sup><a href="#cite_note-182">[181]</a></sup></li></ul>
<p>In <i><a href="/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans">Arizona v. Evans</a></i> (1995)<sup><a href="#cite_note-183">[182]</a></sup> and <i><a href="/wiki/Herring_v._United_States">Herring v. United States</a></i> (2009),<sup><a href="#cite_note-184">[183]</a></sup> the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence found due to negligence regarding a government database, as long as the arresting police officer relied on that database in "good faith" and the negligence was not pervasive.<sup><a href="#cite_note-185">[184]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-186">[185]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Davis_v._United_States_(2011)">Davis v. United States</a></i> (2011),<sup><a href="#cite_note-187">[186]</a></sup> the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to a Fourth Amendment violation resulting from a reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent.<sup><a href="#cite_note-188">[187]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/wiki/Utah_v._Strieff">Utah v. Strieff</a></i> (2016),<sup><a href="#cite_note-189">[188]</a></sup> the Court ruled that evidence obtained from an unlawful police stop would not be excluded from court when the link between the stop and the evidence's discovery was "attenuated" by the discovery of an outstanding warrant during the stop.<sup><a href="#cite_note-190">[189]</a></sup>
</p><p>The Supreme Court has also held the exclusionary rule to not apply in the following circumstances:
</p>
<ul><li>evidence illegally seized by a "private actor" (i.e., not a governmental employee)<sup><a href="#cite_note-191">[190]</a></sup></li>
<li>tax hearings<sup><a href="#cite_note-192">[191]</a></sup></li>
<li>evidence collected by U.S. Customs agents<sup><a href="#cite_note-193">[192]</a></sup></li>
<li>deportation hearings<sup><a href="#cite_note-194">[193]</a></sup></li>
<li>evidence seized by probation or parole officers<sup><a href="#cite_note-195">[194]</a></sup></li>
<li>probation or parole revocation hearings<sup><a href="#cite_note-196">[195]</a></sup></li></ul>
<h2>Metadata[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=23">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>On December 16, 2013, in <i><a href="/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama">Klayman v. Obama</a></i>, a <a href="/wiki/United_States_district_court">United States district court</a> ruled that the mass collection of <a href="/wiki/Metadata">metadata</a> of Americans' telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the Fourth Amendment.<sup><a href="#cite_note-197">[196]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-198">[197]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-199">[198]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-200">[199]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-201">[200]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-202">[201]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-WP20131216-203">[202]</a></sup> The court granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs<sup><a href="#cite_note-Guaraian20131216-204">[203]</a></sup> and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. The court stayed the ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing the "significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues."<sup><a href="#cite_note-WP20131216-203">[202]</a></sup>
</p><p>However, in <i><a href="/wiki/ACLU_v._Clapper">ACLU v. Clapper</a></i>, a United States district court ruled that the U.S. government's global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can work only if everyone's calls are included.<sup><a href="#cite_note-205">[204]</a></sup> The court also ruled that Congress legally set up the program and it does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. The court concluded that the telephone data being swept up by NSA did not belong to telephone users, but to the telephone companies. Also, the court held that when NSA obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not even a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that the controlling precedent is <i><a href="/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland">Smith v. Maryland</a></i>, saying "Smith's bedrock holding is that an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties."<sup><a href="#cite_note-206">[205]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-207">[206]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-208">[207]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-209">[208]</a></sup> The <a href="/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union">American Civil Liberties Union</a> declared on January 2, 2014, that it will appeal the ruling that NSA bulk phone record collection is legal. "The government has a legitimate interest in tracking the associations of suspected terrorists, but tracking those associations does not require the government to subject every citizen to permanent surveillance," deputy ACLU legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.<sup><a href="#cite_note-210">[209]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>See also[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=24">edit</a>]</h2>
<div>
<ul><li><a href="/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights">Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_Protection_Act">Fourth Amendment Protection Act</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001%E2%80%9307)#Fourth_Amendment_issues">NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)#Fourth Amendment issues</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Parallel_construction">Parallel construction</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States">Privacy laws of the United States</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Special_needs_exception">Special needs exception</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Section_Eight_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms">Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/wiki/Subpoena_ad_testificandum">subpoena ad testificandum</a></i></li>
<li><i><a href="/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum">subpoena duces tecum</a></i></li></ul>
</div>
<h2>Notes[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=25">edit</a>]</h2>
<div><ol>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-2">^</a></b> Effects are items of property.<sup><a href="#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup>
</li>
</ol></div>
<p><b>Citations</b>
</p>
<div>
<ol>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-1">^</a></b> <cite>Denniston, Lyle (April 25, 2014). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/argument-preview-police-and-cellphone-privacy/">"Argument preview: Police and cellphone privacy"</a>. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 1, 2014.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-3">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html">"Bill of Rights Transcript Text"</a>. October 30, 2015.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-4">^</a></b> Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEKilmanCostello20061281–1282_5-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEKilmanCostello20061281–1282_5-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEKilmanCostello20061281–1282_5-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#CITEREFKilmanCostello2006">Kilman &amp; Costello (2006)</a>, p. 1281–1282.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-6">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Entick_v_Carrington">Entick v Carrington</a></i>, 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291; 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817 (K. B. 1765)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELevy1995150_7-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFLevy1995">Levy (1995)</a>, p. 150.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-8">^</a></b> <cite>Fuqua, David (Fall 2014). <a href="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=bth&amp;AN=97506316&amp;site=eds-live">"Technology and the Fourth Amendment: History and Application of Principles of Decision in Light of New Means of Surveillance"</a>. <i>FDCC Quarterly</i>. <b>64</b>: 2–25.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEDavies1999_9-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFDavies1999">Davies (1999)</a>.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEWrothZobel1965113,_fn_22_10-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFWrothZobel1965">Wroth &amp; Zobel (1965)</a>, p. 113, fn 22: "The writs of assistance did not become an issue until news of King George II's death arrived in Boston December 27, 1760."
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEWrothZobel1965113,_fn_23_11-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFWrothZobel1965">Wroth &amp; Zobel (1965)</a>, p. 113, fn 23.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELasson193757–61_12-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFLasson1937">Lasson (1937)</a>, p. 57–61.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEAdamsAdams185659_13-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFAdamsAdams1856">Adams &amp; Adams (1856)</a>, p. 59.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELasson193766_14-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFLasson1937">Lasson (1937)</a>, p. 66.
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELevy1995161_15-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELevy1995161_15-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#CITEREFLevy1995">Levy (1995)</a>, p. 161.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-16">^</a></b> <cite>Roots, Roger (January 13, 2010). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130115121043/http://gonzagalawreview.org/files/2011/01/45-Gonz-L-Rev-1.pdf">"The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule"</a> (PDF). Gonzaga Law Review. p. 20 (fn. 118). Archived from <a href="http://gonzagalawreview.org/files/2011/01/45-Gonz-L-Rev-1.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on January 15, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-17">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm">"Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"</a>.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Cuddihy_18-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Cuddihy_18-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Cuddihy, William (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061306/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001007.html">"Fourth Amendment, Historical Origins of"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001007.html">the original</a> on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 27, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBeeman2009341–43_19-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFBeeman2009">Beeman (2009)</a>, p. 341–43.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMaier2010431_20-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFMaier2010">Maier (2010)</a>, p. 431.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-21">^</a></b> "<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIVs13.html">Amendment IV</a>," <i>The Founders Constitution</i>, University of Chicago Press.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-22">^</a></b> Gordon, John D. (III). "Egbert Benson: A Nationalist in Congress", in <i>Neither Separate Nor Equal: Congress in the 1790s</i>, pp. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NzjaxV8oDpMC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70">69-73</a> (edited by Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon of the United States Capitol Historical Society, published by Ohio University Press in 2000).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-23">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html">"Bill of Rights"</a>. National Archives. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130404123122/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html">Archived</a> from the original on April 4, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEWood200971_24-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFWood2009">Wood (2009)</a>, p. 71.
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Levy_25-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Levy_25-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Levy_25-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Levy, Leonard W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061259/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000220.html">"Bill of Rights (United States)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000220.html">the original</a> on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 16, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELabunski2006245_26-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELabunski2006245_26-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#CITEREFLabunski2006">Labunski (2006)</a>, p. 245.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELabunski2006255_27-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFLabunski2006">Labunski (2006)</a>, p. 255.
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-19610306JUSSCC_28-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-19610306JUSSCC_28-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/505/">"Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), at 511"</a>. Justia US Supreme Court Center. March 6, 1961. Retrieved January 26, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELabunski2006258–59_29-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFLabunski2006">Labunski (2006)</a>, p. 258–59.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEWood200972_30-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFWood2009">Wood (2009)</a>, p. 72.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELasson1937106_31-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFLasson1937">Lasson (1937)</a>, p. 106.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-32">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/">"United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), at 427"</a>. Justia US Supreme Court Center. July 6, 1976. Retrieved August 9, 2020.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ontario_v._Quon_33-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ontario_v._Quon_33-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/Ontario_v._Quon">Ontario v. Quon</a></i>, 130 S.Ct. 2619, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/08-1332/">08-1332</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_560">560</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/746/">746</a> (2010).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-34">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/757/">"Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), at 767"</a>. Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 20, 1966. Retrieved September 3, 2020.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-35">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/25/">"Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), at 27"</a>. Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 27, 1949. Retrieved September 3, 2020.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-36">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/">"Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), at 528"</a>. Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 5, 1967. Retrieved April 10, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-37">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210405100014/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf">"<i>Roxanne Torres v. Janice Madrid, et al.</i>, Opinion of the Court, Slip Opinion page 9"</a> (PDF). United States Supreme Court. March 25, 2021. Archived from <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on April 5, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Mapp_38-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Mapp_38-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio">Mapp v. Ohio</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_367">367</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/">643</a> (1961).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-39">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061252/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001584.html">"<i>Mapp v. Ohio</i>"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001584.html">the original</a> on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-40">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/">"Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), at 391-392"</a>. Justia US Supreme Court Center. February 24, 1914. Retrieved January 18, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Arenella_41-0">^</a></b> <cite>Arenella, Peter (1992). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061331/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001005.html">"Fourth Amendment"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001005.html">the original</a> on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-42">^</a></b> <cite>Pedro, Portia (April 1, 2008). <a href="https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/337">"Recent Case, Ninth Circuit Considers Community's Racial Tension with Police in Finding Illegal Seizure and Lack of Voluntary Consent. — United States V. Washington, 490 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2007)"</a>. <i>Harvard Law Review</i>. <b>121</b> (6): 1669.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-43">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Berger_v._New_York">Berger v. New York</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_388">388</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/41/#54,59">41, 54,59</a> (1967).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-44">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Camara_v._Municipal_Court_of_City_and_County_of_San_Francisco">Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_387">387</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/">523</a> (1967).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-45">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant">Arizona v. Gant</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_556">556</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/332/">332</a> (2009), at page 338.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-46">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Chandler_v._Miller">Chandler v. Miller</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_520">520</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/305/">305</a> (1997).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-47">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Jacobsen&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">United States v. Jacobsen</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_466">466</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/109/">109</a> (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (punctuation omitted).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-48">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-ontario-v-quon/">"<i>City of Ontario v. Quon</i>"</a>. <a href="/wiki/SCOTUSblog">SCOTUSblog</a>. Retrieved December 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Katz_49-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Katz_49-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Katz_49-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Katz_49-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Schwartz, Herman (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061449/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001430.html">"<i>Katz v. United States</i> 389 U.S. 347 (1967)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001430.html">the original</a> on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-50">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Silverman_v._United_States">Silverman v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_365">365</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/505/#511">505, 511</a> (1961).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-51">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Katz_v._United_States">Katz v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_389">389</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/">347</a> (1967).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-52">^</a></b> <i>Katz</i>, 389 U.S. at 351.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-53">^</a></b> <i>Katz</i>, 389 U.S. at 351; at 360-61 (Harlan, J., concurring)
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Lure_54-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Lure_54-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Schroeder, Steve (2012). <a href="https://archive.org/details/luretruestoryofh0000schr"><i>The Lure: The True Story of How the Department of Justice Brought Down Two of the World's Most Dangerous Cyber Criminals</i></a>. Cengage Learning. p. <a href="https://archive.org/details/luretruestoryofh0000schr/page/127">127</a>. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-4354-5713-3"><bdi>978-1-4354-5713-3</bdi></a>.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-55">^</a></b> Morgan, Candace. "<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=HV8hITArW9MC&amp;pg=PA41">Challenges and Issues Today</a>" in <i>Intellectual Freedom Manual</i>, pp. 41–42 (American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, 2010).
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Smith_v._Maryland_56-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Smith_v._Maryland_56-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland">Smith v. Maryland</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_442">442</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/">735</a> (1979).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-57">^</a></b> <cite>Freiwald, Susan (2007). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130617132308/http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/freiwald-first-principles.pdf">"First Principles of Communications Privacy"</a> (PDF). <i>Stanford Technology Law Review</i> (3). Archived from <a href="http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/freiwald-first-principles.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on June 17, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-58">^</a></b> Sorosky, Schuyler. "<a href="http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2630&amp;context=llr">United States v. Forrester: An Unwarranted Narrowing of the Fourth Amendment</a>," <i>Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review</i>, Vol. 41, p. 1121, 1126 (2008).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-59">^</a></b> <i>Smith v. Maryland</i>, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979); <i>United States v. Miller</i>, 425 U.S. 435, 440-41 (1976).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-60">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_5374/">"<i>Smith v. Maryland</i>"</a>. <i>The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law</i>. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved January 13, 2014. <q>Because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily given to third parties, the telephone numbers that are regularly and voluntarily provided to telephone companies by their customers do not gain Fourth Amendment protections.</q></cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-61">^</a></b> <i>Smith</i>, 442 U.S. at 742.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-62">^</a></b> <cite>Howe, Amy (June 22, 2018). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-police-will-generally-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-information/">"Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for cellphone location information"</a>. <a href="/wiki/SCOTUSblog">SCOTUSblog</a>. Retrieved June 22, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Jones2012_63-0">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)">United States v. Jones</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-1259/">10-1259</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_565">565</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2012).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-64">^</a></b> <cite>Denniston, Lyle (January 23, 2012). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/opinion-recap-tight-limit-on-police-gps-use/">"Opinion recap: Tight limit on police GPS use"</a>. <a href="/wiki/SCOTUSblog">SCOTUSblog</a>. Retrieved January 23, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Jardines_65-0">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines">Florida v. Jardines</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/11-564/">11-564</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_569">569</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2013).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-66">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio">Terry v. Ohio</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_392">392</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/">1</a> (1968)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-67">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085727/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002506.html">"Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Sibron v. New York 392 U.S. 40 (1968)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002506.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Royer_68-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Royer_68-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/Florida_v._Royer">Florida v. Royer</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_460">460</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/491/#497%E2%80%9398">491, 497–98</a> (1983).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Royer2_69-0">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/arrest-search-and-seizure/florida-v-royer/2/">"Florida v. Royer"</a>. casebriefs.com. Retrieved July 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-70">^</a></b> <i>Jacobsen</i>, 466 U.S. at 113.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-71">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Soldal_v._Cook_County">Soldal v. Cook County</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_506">506</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/56/#61">56, 61</a> (1992). "The right against unreasonable seizures would be no less transgressed if the seizure of the house was undertaken to collect evidence, verify compliance with a housing regulation, effect an eviction by the police, or on a whim, for no reason at all."
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-United_States_v._Mendenhall_72-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-United_States_v._Mendenhall_72-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-United_States_v._Mendenhall_72-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-United_States_v._Mendenhall_72-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Mendenhall">United States v. Mendenhall</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_446">446</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/446/544/">544</a> (1980).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-73">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Dunaway_v._New_York">Dunaway v. New York</a></i>, 442 U.S. 200, 210 n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2255 n. 12, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-74">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Florida_v._Bostick">Florida v. Bostick</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_501">501</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/429/#439">429, 439</a> (1991).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Knowles_v._Iowa_75-0">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Knowles_v._Iowa">Knowles v. Iowa</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_525">525</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/113/#117">113, 117</a> (1998).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-76">^</a></b> <cite>Moritz, Rob (April 5, 2008). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080613195115/http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/04/05/News/345838.html">"Fed appeals court says refusal to identify no cause for arrest"</a>. <i>Arkansas News Bureau</i>. Archived from <a href="http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/04/05/News/345838.html">the original</a> on June 13, 2008. Retrieved April 6, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-77">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Virginia_v._Moore">Virginia v. Moore</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/06-1082/">06-1082</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_553">553</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/164/">164</a> (2008).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-78">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-04-23-scotus-search_N.htm">"Court allows search and seizure in Va. case"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/USA_Today">USA Today</a></i>. April 23, 2008. Retrieved April 11, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-79">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Maryland_v._King">Maryland v. King</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/12-207/">12-207</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_569">569</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2013).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-80">^</a></b> June, Daniel. (June 3, 2013)<a href="http://www.jdjournal.com/2013/06/03/supreme-court-approves-use-of-dna-swabbing-in-serious-arrests/">"Supreme Court Approves Use of DNA Swabbing in Serious Arrests"</a>. <i>JDJournal</i>. Accessed August 2, 2013.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-81">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse">Delaware v. Prouse</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_440">440</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/648/">648</a> (1979).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-82">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085710/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000155.html">"Automobile search"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000155.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-83">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte">United States v. Martinez-Fuerte</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_428">428</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/">543</a> (1976).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-84">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz">Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz</a></i> <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_496">496</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/">444</a> (1990).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-85">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Lidster">Illinois v. Lidster</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_540">540</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&amp;court=US&amp;vol=540&amp;page=419">419</a> (2004).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-86">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond">City of Indianapolis v. Edmond</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_531">531</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/">32</a> (2000).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-87">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Maryland_v._Dyson&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Maryland v. Dyson</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_527">527</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/465/">465</a> (1999).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-88">^</a></b> <cite><i>Andrews v. Fuoss</i></cite>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=40000006&amp;case=2225498566309744665&amp;scilh=0">417 F.3d 813</a>, 819 (8th Cir. 2005).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-89">^</a></b> <i>Flippo v. West Virginia</i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_528">528</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/528/11/">11</a> (1999); <i><a href="/wiki/California_v._Acevedo">California v. Acevedo</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_500">500</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/565/">565</a> (1991).
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-TLO_90-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-TLO_90-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.">New Jersey v. T. L. O.</a></i>, <i><a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_469">469</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/325/">325</a> (1985)</i>. "[W]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically delineated and well-recognized exceptions. ... full-scale searches—whether conducted in accordance with the warrant requirement or pursuant to one of its exceptions—are 'reasonable' in Fourth Amendment terms only on a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime will be found in the place to be searched."
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-91">^</a></b> <i>T. L. O.</i>, 469 U.S., <a href="/wiki/Harry_Blackmun">Blackmun, J.</a>, concurring.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-92">^</a></b> <cite>Keeley III., Charles J. (2006). <a href="http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4178&amp;context=flr">"Article 8 – Subway Searches: Which Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements Applies to Suspicionless Searches of Mass Transit Passengers To Prevent Terrorism?"</a>. <i>Fordham Law Review</i>. <b>74</b> (6): 3236. Retrieved December 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-93">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Skinner_v._Railway_Labor_Executives_Association">Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_489">489</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/602/">602</a> (1989).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-94">^</a></b> <cite>Senior Specialist Charles Doyle (January 30, 2006). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190824161409/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf">"CSR Memorandum to the United Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled "Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Act""</a> (PDF). Congressional Research Service via the <a href="/wiki/Federation_of_American_Scientists">Federation of American Scientists</a>. Archived from <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on August 24, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-95">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Beck_v._Ohio">Beck v. Ohio</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_379">379</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/89/#91">89, 91</a> (1964).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-96">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Johnson_v._United_States_(1948_Fourth_Amendment_case)">Johnson v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_333">333</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/10/">10</a> (1948).
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Carroll_97-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Carroll_97-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States">Carroll v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_267">267</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/">132</a> (1925).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-98">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085725/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000387.html">"<i>Carroll v. United States</i> 267 U.S. 132 (1925)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000387.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-99">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Dumbra_v._United_States&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Dumbra v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_268">268</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/435/">435</a> (1925).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-100">^</a></b> <i>Carroll</i>, 267 U.S. at 162.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-101">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._Brown&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Texas v. Brown</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_460">460</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/730/#742">730, 742</a> (1983).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-102">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Gates">Illinois v. Gates</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_462">462</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/213/">213</a> (1983).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-103">^</a></b> Holcomb, J. W. (March 2003).<a href="https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/mar03leb.pdf">Obtaining Written Consent to Search</a>. <i>FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin</i>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-104">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Schneckloth_v._Bustamonte">Schneckloth v. Bustamonte</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_412">412</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/412/218/">218</a> (1973).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-105">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085723/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002231.html">"<i>Schneckloth v. Bustamonte</i> 412 U.S. 218 (1973)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002231.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-106">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Matlock">United States v. Matlock</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_415">415</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/164/">164</a> (1974).
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Crawford_107-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Crawford_107-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Crawford, Kimberly A. (August 1, 1996). <a href="https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-18701410">"Consent searches: guidelines for officers"</a>. <i>The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin</i>.</cite><sup>[<i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot">dead link</a></i>]</sup>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-108">^</a></b> <i>Georgia v. Randolph</i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_547">547</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/103/">103</a> (2006).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-109">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Rodriguez">Illinois v. Rodriguez</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_497">497</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/177/">177</a> (1990).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-110">^</a></b> <i>Stoner v. California</i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_376">376</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/483/">483</a> (1969).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-111">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Coolidge_v._New_Hampshire">Coolidge v. New Hampshire</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_403">403</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/443/">443</a> (1971).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-112">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085718/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001924.html">"Plain View Doctrine"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001924.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-113">^</a></b> <i>Arizona v. Hicks</i>, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-114">^</a></b> 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-115">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Hester_v._United_States">Hester v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_265">265</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/57/">57</a> (1924).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-116">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Oliver_v._United_States">Oliver v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_466">466</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/170/">170</a> (1984).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-117">^</a></b> <i>Oliver</i>, 466 U.S. at 179.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-118">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo">California v. Ciraolo</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_476">476</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/207/#213">207, 213</a> (1986).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-119">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Dunn">United States v. Dunn</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_480">480</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/294/#300">294, 300</a> (1987).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-120">^</a></b> <i>Dunn</i>, 480 U.S. at 301.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-121">^</a></b> <i>Jardines</i>, 569 U. S. (slip op., at 6). "This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation's Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters."
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Exigent_122-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Exigent_122-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Exigent_122-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Exigent_122-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Exigent_122-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085714/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000901.html">"Exigent Circumstances Search"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000901.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Weeks_123-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Weeks_123-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <i><a href="/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States">Weeks v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_232">232</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/">383</a> (1914).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-124">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Schmerber_v._California">Schmerber v. California</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_384">384</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/757/">757</a> (1966).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-125">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114063641/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf">"Missouri v. McNeely"</a> (PDF). Supreme Court. Archived from <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on November 14, 2014. Retrieved December 5, 2014.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-126">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Warden_v._Hayden">Warden v. Hayden</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_387">387</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/294/">294</a> (1967).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-127">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/courts_in_a_muddle_over_4th_amendments_community_caretaking_exception/">"Courts in a muddle over 4th Amendment's community caretaking exception"</a>. <i>ABA Journal</i>. David L. Hudson. Retrieved September 29, 2018.</cite><code>{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Cite_news">cite news</a>}}</code>: CS1 maint: others (<a href="/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_others">link</a>)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-128">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180930033541/https://www.radford.edu/content/va-chiefs/home/august-2012/community-caretaker.html">"The Community Caretaker Function Exception to the Warrant Requirement | Virginia Police Legal Bulletin | Radford University"</a>. <i>www.radford.edu</i>. Archived from <a href="https://www.radford.edu/content/va-chiefs/home/august-2012/community-caretaker.html">the original</a> on September 30, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-129">^</a></b> <i>Carroll v. United States</i>, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-130">^</a></b> <cite>Hendrie, Edward (August 1, 2005). <a href="https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-136166930">"The motor vehicle exception"</a>. <i>The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin</i>.</cite><sup>[<i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot">dead link</a></i>]</sup>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-131">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Collins_v._Virginia">Collins v. Virginia</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us//16-1027/">16-1027</a>, ___ <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2018)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-132">^</a></b> <cite>Howe, Amy (May 29, 2018). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-justices-decline-to-extend-fourth-amendments-automobile-exception/">"Opinion analysis: Justices decline to extend Fourth Amendment's "automobile exception""</a>. <a href="/wiki/SCOTUSblog">SCOTUSblog</a>. Retrieved May 29, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-133">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant">Arizona v. Gant</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/07-542/">07-542</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_556">556</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/332/">332</a> (2009)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-134">^</a></b> <cite>Moore, Kristina (April 21, 2009). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/04/a-new-rule-for-warrantless-car-searches/">"Limits on warrantless car searches, compensation to terrorism victims, veterans benefit disputes"</a>. <a href="/wiki/SCOTUSblog">SCOTUSblog</a>. Retrieved April 22, 2009.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-135">^</a></b> <a href="/wiki/Orin_Kerr">Kerr, Orin</a> (December 14, 2010) <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/12/14/the-origins-of-the-search-incident-to-arrest-exception/">The Origins of the "Search Incident to Arrest" Exception</a>, <i><a href="/wiki/The_Volokh_Conspiracy">The Volokh Conspiracy</a></i>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-136">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://epic.org/amicus/cell-phone/riley/#background">"<i>Riley v. California</i> – Concerning the Constitutionality of a Warrantless Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest"</a>. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved July 1, 2014.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-137">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant">Arizona v. Gant</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_556">556</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&amp;court=US&amp;vol=556&amp;page=332#339">332, 339</a> (2009).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-138">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Trupiano_v._United_States">Trupiano v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_334">334</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/699/">699</a> (1948).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-139">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Rabinowitz">United States v. Rabinowitz</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_339">339</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/56/">56</a> (1950).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-140">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Chimel_v._California">Chimel v. California</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_395">395</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/752/">752</a> (1969).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-141">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Riley_v._California">Riley v. California</a></i> No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-132/">13-132</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_573">573</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2014).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-142">^</a></b> <cite>Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2014). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html?_r=0">"Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. Retrieved June 25, 2014.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-143">^</a></b> <cite>Charlie Savage, Hannah Fairfield and Josh Williams (June 25, 2014). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/25/us/annotated-supreme-court-cellphone-privacy-decision.html">"Between the Lines of the Cellphone Privacy Ruling"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. Retrieved June 25, 2014.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-144">^</a></b> <cite><i>Henderson v. United States (1967)</i></cite>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16279205941356630763&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=80000006">390 F.2d 805</a> (9th Cir. 1967).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-145">^</a></b> <cite><i>United States v. Guadalupe-Garza</i></cite>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12470920553407736097&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=80000006">421 F.2d 876</a> (9th Cir. 1970).
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Upright_146-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Upright_146-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Upright_146-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Upright, Scott J. (October 1, 2009). <a href="https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-212208638">"Suspicionless border seizures of electronic files: the overextension of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment"</a>. <i>William and Mary Law Review</i>. <b>51</b> (1): 291.</cite><sup>[<i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot">dead link</a></i>]</sup>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-147">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Flores-Montano">United States v. Flores-Montano</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_541">541</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/149/">149</a> (2004), <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Montoya_De_Hernandez">United States v. Montoya De Hernandez</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_473">473</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/531/">531</a> (1985), and <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Ramsey_(1977)">United States v. Ramsey</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_431">431</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/606/">606</a> (1977).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-148">^</a></b> <i>Flores-Montano</i>, 541 U.S. at 152–53.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-149">^</a></b> <cite><i>United States v. Ickes</i></cite>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=40000006&amp;case=6617780725605214433&amp;scilh=0">393 F.3d 501</a> (4th Cir. 2005).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-150">^</a></b> <cite><i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold">United States v. Arnold</a></i></cite>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=40000006&amp;case=12655750918489961564&amp;scilh=0">523 F.3d 941</a> (9th Cir. 2008).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-151">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._U.S._District_Court">United States v. U.S. District Court</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_407">407</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/297/">297</a> (1972).
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Lawfare20130523_152-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Lawfare20130523_152-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Vladeck, Steve (May 23, 2013). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190716214424/https://www.lawfareblog.com/more-clapper-and-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-exception">"More on Clapper and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Exception"</a>. Lawfare Blog – Hard National Security Choices. Archived from <a href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/more-on-clapper/">the original</a> on July 16, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Seyla20080822_153-0">^</a></b> <cite><a href="/wiki/Bruce_M._Selya">Selya, Bruce M.</a> (August 22, 2008). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190803025150/https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf">"United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"</a> (PDF). <a href="/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court_of_Review">U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review</a> (via the <a href="/wiki/Federation_of_American_Scientists">Federation of American Scientists</a>). Archived from <a href="https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on August 3, 2019. Retrieved July 15, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Lawfare20130522_154-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Lawfare20130522_154-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Vladeck, Steve (May 22, 2013). <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-clapper-matters-future-programmatic-surveillance">"Why Clapper Matters: The Future of Programmatic Surveillance"</a>. <i>Lawfare Blog – Hard National Security Choices</i>. Retrieved July 17, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FiscPrivacyRuling2011_155-0">^</a></b> <cite>John D Bates (October 3, 2011). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190711060421/https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/fisc_opinion_-_unconstitutional_surveillance_0.pdf">"[redacted]"</a> (PDF). <i>United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court</i>. Electronic Frontier Foundation. pp. 73–74. Archived from <a href="https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/fisc_opinion_-_unconstitutional_surveillance_0.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on July 11, 2019.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-20060130CSRDoyle76006_156-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-20060130CSRDoyle76006_156-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-20060130CSRDoyle76006_156-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Senior Specialist Charles Doyle (January 30, 2006). <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf">"CSR Memorandum to the United Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled "Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Act""</a> (PDF). Congressional Research Service via the <a href="/wiki/Federation_of_American_Scientists">Federation of American Scientists</a>. pp. 1 and 6–8. Retrieved September 27, 2019.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-157">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Board_of_Education_v._Earls">Board of Education v. Earls</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_536">536</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/822/">822</a> (2002)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-158">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Illinois_v._Lidster">Illinois v. Lidster</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_540">540</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/419/">419</a> (2004)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-159">^</a></b> <cite>Ferraro, Thomas (July 9, 2008). <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance/bush-wins-passage-of-spy-bill-to-protect-telecoms-idUSWAT00975320080710">"Bush wins passage of US spy bill to protect telecoms"</a>. <i>Reuters</i>. Reuters. Retrieved September 27, 2019.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-160">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Samson_v._California">Samson v. California</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_547">547</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/843/">843</a> (2006).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-161">^</a></b> <cite>Goring, Darlene C. (1984). <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6436&amp;context=jclc">"Fourth Amendment—Prison Cells: Is there a Right to Privacy"</a>. <i>Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology</i>. <b>75</b> (3): 609–629. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1143635">10.2307/1143635</a>. <a href="/wiki/JSTOR_(identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a href="//www.jstor.org/stable/1143635">1143635</a>. Retrieved September 19, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-162">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Safford_Unified_School_District_v._Redding">Safford Unified School District v. Redding</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/08-479/">08-479</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_557">557</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2009).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-163">^</a></b> <cite>Denniston, Lyle (June 25, 2009). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/06/analysis-some-expansion-of-student-privacy/">"Analysis: Some expansion of student privacy"</a>. <a href="/wiki/SCOTUSblog">SCOTUSblog</a>. Retrieved June 25, 2009.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-Exclusionary_164-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Exclusionary_164-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Exclusionary_164-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Exclusionary_164-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Levy, Leonard W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131111045052/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000884.html">"Exclusionary Rule"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000884.html">the original</a> on November 11, 2013. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-165">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Elkins_v._United_States">Elkins v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_364">364</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/364/206/">206</a> (1960).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-166">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085525/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002689.html">"Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002689.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-167">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._United_States">Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_251">251</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/251/385/">385</a> (1920).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-168">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Nardone_v._United_States">Nardone v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_308">308</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/308/338/">338</a> (1939).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-169">^</a></b> <cite>Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085519/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002308.html">"Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States 251 U.S. 385 (1920)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002308.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-170">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Wolf_v._Colorado">Wolf v. Colorado</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_338">338</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/25/">25</a> (1949).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-171">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085521/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3457000098.html">"Mapp v. Ohio"</a>. <i>Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). 2001. Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3457000098.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-172">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/21/opinion/california-s-backfire-on-crime.html">"California's Backfire on Crime"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. June 21, 1982. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTECrisera19901587_173-0">^</a></b> <a href="#CITEREFCrisera1990">Crisera (1990)</a>, p. 1587.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-174">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Calandra&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">United States v. Calandra</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_414">414</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/338/">338</a> (1974).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-175">^</a></b> <i>Calandra</i>, 414 U.S. at 354.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-176">^</a></b> <i>Calandra</i>, 414 U.S. at 349.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-177">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Leon">United States v. Leon</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_468">468</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/897/">897</a> (1984).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-178">^</a></b> <i>Leon</i>, 468 U.S. at 926.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-179">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Nix_v._Williams">Nix v. Williams</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_467">467</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/431/">431</a> (1984).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-180">^</a></b> <cite>Levy, Leonard W. (1986). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610085517/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001776.html">"Nix v. Williams 467 U.S. 431 (1984)"</a>. <i>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</i>.  – via <a href="/wiki/HighBeam_Research">HighBeam Research</a> (subscription required). Archived from <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001776.html">the original</a> on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-181">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Segura_v._United_States&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Segura v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_468">468</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/796/">796</a> (1984).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-182">^</a></b> <cite>Hendrie, Edward M. (September 1, 1997). <a href="https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-54061501">"The Inevitable Discovery Exception to the Exclusionary Rule"</a>. <i>The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin</i>.</cite><sup>[<i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot">dead link</a></i>]</sup>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-183">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans">Arizona v. Evans</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_514">514</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/1/">1</a> (1995).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-184">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Herring_v._United_States">Herring v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_555">555</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/135/">135</a> (2009).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-185">^</a></b> <cite>Stinger, C. Maureen (February 13, 1996). <a href="http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v2i1/stinger.html">"<i>Arizona v. Evans</i>: Adapting the Exclusionary Rule to Advancing Computer Technology"</a>. The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. Retrieved January 16, 2009.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-186">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1202427461021">"Court says evidence is valid despite police error"</a>. Retrieved January 14, 2009.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-187">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Davis_v._United_States_(2011)">Davis v. United States</a></i>, 131 S.Ct. 2419, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/09-11328/">09-11328</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_564">564</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2011).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-188">^</a></b> <cite>Denniston, Lyle (June 25, 2011). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=122938">"Opinion analysis: The fading "exclusionary rule""</a>. <a href="/wiki/SCOTUSblog">SCOTUSblog</a>. Retrieved November 25, 2011.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-189">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/Utah_v._Strieff">Utah v. Strieff</a></i>, No. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/14-1373/">14-1373</a>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_579">579</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2016)
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-190">^</a></b> <cite>Waimberg, Joshua. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160623144514/http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/06/the-supreme-courts-utah-v-strieff-decision-and-the-fourth-amendment/">"The Supreme Court's Utah v. Strieff decision and the Fourth Amendment"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/National_Constitution_Center">National Constitution Center</a></i>. <a href="/wiki/National_Constitution_Center">National Constitution Center</a>. Archived from <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/06/the-supreme-courts-utah-v-strieff-decision-and-the-fourth-amendment/">the original</a> on June 23, 2016. Retrieved June 25, 2016.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-191">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Burdeau_v._McDowell&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Burdeau v. McDowell</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_256">256</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/">465</a> (1921).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-192">^</a></b> <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Janis">United States v. Janis</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_428">428</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/433/">433</a> (1976).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-193">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Andreas&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">United States v. Andreas</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_463">463</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/765/">765</a> (1983).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-194">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=INS_v._Lopez-Mendoza&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">INS v. Lopez-Mendoza</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_468">468</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/1032/">1032</a> (1984).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-195">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Griffin_v._Wisconsin&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Griffin v. Wisconsin</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_483">483</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/868/">868</a> (1987); <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Knights&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">United States v. Knights</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_534">534</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/534/112/">112</a> (2001).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-196">^</a></b> <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Bd._of_Probation_and_Parole_v._Scott&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1">Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott</a></i>, <a href="/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_524">524</a> <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/357/">357</a> (1998).
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-197">^</a></b> <cite>Leon, Richard (December 16, 2013). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170830105413/https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/federal-judge-rules-nsa-program-is-likely-unconstitutional/668/">"Federal judge rules NSA program is likely unconstitutional"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i>. Archived from <a href="https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/federal-judge-rules-nsa-program-is-likely-unconstitutional/668/">the original</a> on August 30, 2017. Retrieved December 17, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-198">^</a></b> <cite>Savage, Charlie (December 16, 2013). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-data-program.html">"Judge Questions Legality of N.S.A. Phone Records"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. Retrieved December 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-199">^</a></b> <cite>Bill Mears; Evan Perez (December 17, 2013). <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/">"Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional"</a>. CNN. Retrieved December 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-200">^</a></b> <cite>Kravets, David (December 16, 2013). <a href="https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/12/bulk-telephone-metada-ruling/">"Court Says NSA Bulk Telephone Spying Is Unconstitutional"</a>. <i>Wired</i>. Retrieved December 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-201">^</a></b> <cite>Kevin Johnson; Richard Wolf (December 16, 2013). <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/16/judge-nsa-surveillance-fourth-amendment/4041995/">"Federal judge rules against NSA spying"</a>. <i>USA Today</i>. Retrieved December 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-202">^</a></b> <cite>Gerstein, Josh (December 16, 2013). <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html">"Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional"</a>. <i>Politico</i>. Retrieved December 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-WP20131216_203-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-WP20131216_203-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Ellen Nakashima; Ann E. Marimow (December 16, 2013). <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-nsas-collecting-of-phone-records-is-likely-unconstitutional/2013/12/16/6e098eda-6688-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html">"Judge: NSA's collecting of phone records is probably unconstitutional"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i>. Retrieved December 17, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-Guaraian20131216_204-0">^</a></b> <cite>Spencer Ackerman; Dan Roberts (December 16, 2013). <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge">"NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules"</a>. <i>The Guardian</i>. Retrieved December 18, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-205">^</a></b> <cite>Pauley III, William H. (December 27, 2013). <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/order_granting_governments_motion_to_dismiss_and_denying_aclu_motion_for_preliminary_injunction.pdf">"United States District Court Southern District of New York: American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper (13 Civ. 3994) (WHP))"</a> (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved December 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-206">^</a></b> <cite>Adam Liptak; Michael S. Schmidt (December 27, 2013). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all">"Judge Upholds N.S.A.'s Bulk Collection of Data on Calls"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. Retrieved December 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-207">^</a></b> <cite>Denniston, Lyle (December 27, 2013). <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/12/judge-upholds-nsas-phone-data-sweeps/">"Judge upholds NSA's phone data sweeps (UPDATED)"</a>. Scotusblog. Retrieved December 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-208">^</a></b> <cite>Peterson, Andrea (December 27, 2013). <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/27/the-most-kafkaesque-paragraph-from-todays-nsa-ruling/?wprss=rss_business">"The most Kafkaesque paragraph from today's NSA ruling"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i>. Retrieved December 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-209">^</a></b> <cite>Horwitz, Sari (December 27, 2013). <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html">"NSA collection of phone data is lawful, federal judge rules"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i>. Retrieved December 28, 2013.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-210">^</a></b> <cite>Ackermann, Spencer (January 2, 2014). <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/02/aclu-appeal-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection">"ACLU will appeal ruling that NSA bulk phone record collection is legal"</a>. <i>The Guardian</i>. Retrieved January 4, 2014.</cite>
</li>
</ol></div>
<h2>References[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=26">edit</a>]</h2>
<div>
<ul><li><cite>Adams, Charles Francis; Adams, John (1856). <i>The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author</i>. Vol. 1. Little, Brown.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Beeman, Richard (2009). <i>Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution</i>. Random House.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Crisera, Maria Lisa (1990). <a href="https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol78/iss6/4">"Reevaluation of the California Corpus Delicti Rule: A Response to the Invitation of Proposition 8"</a>. <i>California Law Review</i>. <b>78</b> (6): 1571–1597. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3480804">10.2307/3480804</a>. <a href="/wiki/JSTOR_(identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a href="//www.jstor.org/stable/3480804">3480804</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Davies, Thomas Y. (1999). <a href="https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol98/iss3/2">"Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Michigan_Law_Review">Michigan Law Review</a></i>. <b>98</b> (3): 547–750. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1290314">10.2307/1290314</a>. <a href="/wiki/JSTOR_(identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a href="//www.jstor.org/stable/1290314">1290314</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Kilman, Johnny; Costello, George, eds. (2006). <i>The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation</i>. GPO.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Labunski, Richard E. (2006). <i>James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights</i>. Oxford University Press.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Lasson, Nelson B. (1937). <i>The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</i>. Johns Hopkins University Press.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Levy, Leonard Williams (1995). <i>Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights, and History</i>. Transaction Publishers.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Maier, Pauline (2010). <i>Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788</i>. Simon and Schuster.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Wood, Gordon S. (2009). <i>Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815</i>. Oxford University Press.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Wroth, Kinvin; Zobel, Hiller B., eds. (1965). <i>Legal Papers of John Adams</i>. Vol. 2. Belknap Press.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/1211_fourth_amendment_-_lp.pdf"><i>Fourth Amendment Lesson Plan</i></a> (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. February 10, 2010.</cite></li></ul>
</div>
<h2>External links[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=27">edit</a>]</h2>
<div>
<p></p>
</div>
<ul><li><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4toc_user.html">CRS Annotated Constitution: Fourth Amendment</a>, <a href="/wiki/Cornell_University">Cornell University</a></li></ul>
</div>||||I|||| Jump to content
 Toggle sidebar
 Search
 * Create account
 Personal tools
 * Create account
 * Log in

 Pages for logged out editors learn more

 * Talk
 * Contributions
 Navigation
 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * About Wikipedia
 * Contact us
 * Donate
 Contribute
 * Help
 * Learn to edit
 * Community portal
 * Recent changes
 * Upload file
 Tools
 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Permanent link
 * Page information
 * Cite this page
 * Wikidata item
 Print/export
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version
 In other projects
 * Wikiquote
 Languages
 On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title. Go to top.

 Contents

 move to sidebar hide
 * (Top)
 * 1 Text
 * 2 Background
 + 2.1 English law
 + 2.2 Colonial America
 * 3 Proposal and ratification
 * 4 Applicability
 + 4.1 Search
 + 4.2 Seizure
 o 4.2.1 Exceptions
 + 4.3 Warrant
 + 4.4 Probable cause
 * 5 Exceptions to the warrant requirement
 + 5.1 Consent
 + 5.2 Plain view and open fields
 + 5.3 Exigent circumstance
 + 5.4 Motor vehicle
 + 5.5 Searches incident to a lawful arrest
 + 5.6 Border search exception
 + 5.7 Foreign intelligence surveillance
 + 5.8 Schools and prisons
 * 6 Exclusionary rule
 + 6.1 Limitations
 * 7 Metadata
 * 8 See also
 * 9 Notes
 * 10 References
 * 11 External links
 Toggle the table of contents

 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

 22 languages
 * Ænglisc
 * العربية
 * Беларуская
 * Català
 * Deutsch
 * Eesti
 * Español
 * فارسی
 * Français
 * 한국어
 * Bahasa Indonesia
 * עברית
 * Lombard
 * پښتو
 * Polski
 * Português
 * Română
 * Русский
 * Simple English
 * Suomi
 * Українська
 * 中文
 Edit links
 * Article
 * Talk
 English
 * Read
 * Edit
 * View history
 More
 * Read
 * Edit
 * View history
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of a series on the 
 Constitution 
 of the United States 
 
 Preamble and Articles 
 * Preamble 
 * I 
 * II 
 * III 
 * IV 
 * V 
 * VI 
 * VII 
 Amendments to the Constitution 
 * I 
 * II 
 * III 
 * IV 
 * V 
 * VI 
 * VII 
 * VIII 
 * IX 
 * X 
 * XI 
 * XII 
 * XIII 
 * XIV 
 * XV 
 * XVI 
 * XVII 
 * XVIII 
 * XIX 
 * XX 
 * XXI 
 * XXII 
 * XXIII 
 * XXIV 
 * XXV 
 * XXVI 
 * XXVII 
 Unratified Amendments: 
 * Congressional Apportionment 
 * Titles of Nobility 
 * Corwin 
 * Child Labor 
 * Equal Rights 
 * D.C. Voting Rights 
 History 
 * Drafting and ratification timeline
 * Convention 
 * Signing 
 * Federalism 
 * Republicanism 
 * Bill of Rights 
 * Reconstruction Amendments 
 Full text 
 * Preamble and Articles I–VII 
 * Amendments I–X 
 * Amendments XI–XXVII 
 * Unratified Amendments 
 * United States portal 
 * Law portal 
 * Politics portal 
 * v 
 * t 
 * e 
 
 The Bill of Rights in the National Archives

 The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

 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 to address violations of Fourth Amendment rights. 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.

 The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree." The exception is if it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.

 The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced that it was officially part of the Constitution.

 Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to state or local governments, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The amendment was held to apply to state and local governments in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 Text [ edit ]

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.[2]

 The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to show just the text that would later be ratified as the Fourth Amendment

 Background [ edit ]

 English law [ edit ]

 Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden established the English common law precedent against general search warrants.

 Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its origin in English legal doctrine. In Semayne's case (1604), Sir Edward Coke famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[3] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings, but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.[4]

 The 1760s saw a growth in the intensity of litigation against state officers, who using general warrants, conducted raids in search of materials relating to John Wilkes's publications. The most famous of these cases involved John Entick whose home was forcibly entered by the King's Messenger Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax authorizing them "to make strict and diligent search for ... the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers entitled, 'The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 257, 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380'", the search resulting in seizure of printed charts, pamphlets and other materials. Entick filed suit in Entick v Carrington, argued before the Court of King's Bench in 1765. Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden ruled that both the search and the seizure were unlawful, as the warrant authorized the seizure of all of Entick's papers—not just the criminal ones—and as the warrant lacked probable cause to even justify the search. By holding that "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave",[5] Entick established the English precedent that the executive is limited in intruding on private property by common law.[4]

 Colonial America [ edit ]

 Homes in Colonial America, on the other hand, did not enjoy the same sanctity as their British counterparts, because legislation had been explicitly written so as to enable enforcement of British revenue-gathering policies on customs; until 1750, in fact, the only type of warrant defined in the handbooks for justices of the peace was the general warrant.[4] During what scholar William Cuddihy called the "colonial epidemic of general searches", the authorities possessed almost unlimited power to search for anything at any time, with very little oversight.[6]

 Massachusetts lawyer James Otis protested British use of general warrants in the American colonies.

 In 1756, the colony of Massachusetts barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs.[7] The act also permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing tax collectors to search the homes of colonists and seize "prohibited and uncustomed" goods.[8] A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27, 1760, when the news of King George II's death on October 23 arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King, and would have had to be re-issued by George III, the new king, to remain valid.[9]

 In mid-January 1761, a group of more than fifty merchants represented by James Otis petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five-hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced British colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance.[10] However, the court ruled against Otis.[11] Future President John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events as "the spark in which originated the American Revolution".[12]

 Because of the name he had made for himself in attacking the writs, Otis was elected to the Massachusetts colonial legislature and helped pass legislation requiring that special writs of assistance be "granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs" and barring all other writs. The governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to English law and parliamentary sovereignty.[13]

 Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became a precedent for the Fourth Amendment:[14]

 That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.[14]

 Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, written by John Adams and enacted in 1780 as part of the Massachusetts Constitution, added the requirement that all searches must be "reasonable", and served as another basis for the language of the Fourth Amendment:[15]

 Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.[16]

 By 1784, eight state constitutions contained a provision against general warrants.[17]

 Proposal and ratification [ edit ]

 Main article: United States Bill of Rights

 After several years of comparatively weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring a stronger chief executive and other changes. George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing civil liberties be included. Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter James Madison—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked implying that other, unnamed rights were unprotected. After a brief debate, Mason's proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations.[18]

 For the Constitution to be ratified, nine of the thirteen states were required to approve it in state conventions. Opposition to ratification ("Anti-Federalism") was partly based on the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Supporters of the Constitution in states where popular sentiment was against ratification (including Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York) successfully proposed that their state conventions both ratify the Constitution and call for the addition of a bill of rights.[19] Four state conventions proposed some form of restriction on the authority of the new federal government to conduct searches.[17]

 James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights

 In the 1st United States Congress, following the state legislatures' request, James Madison proposed twenty constitutional amendments based on state bills of rights and English sources such as the Bill of Rights 1689, including an amendment requiring probable cause for government searches. Congress reduced Madison's proposed twenty amendments to twelve, with modifications to Madison's language about searches and seizures.[20][21] The final language was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789.[22]

 By the time the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, opinions had shifted in both parties. Many Federalists, who had previously opposed a Bill of Rights, now supported the Bill as a means of silencing the Anti-Federalists' most effective criticism. Many Anti-Federalists, in contrast, now opposed it, realizing the Bill's adoption would greatly lessen the chances of a second constitutional convention, which they desired.[23] Anti-Federalists such as Richard Henry Lee also argued that the Bill left the most objectionable portions of the Constitution, such as the federal judiciary and direct taxation, intact.[24]

 On November 20, 1789, New Jersey ratified eleven of the twelve amendments, including the Fourth. On December 19, 1789, December 22, 1789, and January 19, 1790, respectively, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina ratified all twelve amendments.[25] On January 25 and 28, 1790, respectively, New Hampshire and Delaware ratified eleven of the Bill's twelve amendments, including the Fourth.[25] This brought the total of ratifying states to six of the required ten, but the process stalled in other states: Connecticut and Georgia found a Bill of Rights unnecessary and so refused to ratify, while Massachusetts ratified most of the amendments, but failed to send official notice to the Secretary of State that it had done so (all three states would later ratify the Bill of Rights for sesquicentennial celebrations in 1939).[24]

 In February through June 1790, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island each ratified eleven of the amendments, including the Fourth. Virginia initially postponed its debate, but after Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791, the total number of states needed for ratification rose to eleven. Vermont ratified on November 3, 1791, approving all twelve amendments, and Virginia finally followed on December 15, 1791.[24] Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792.[26]

 Applicability [ edit ]

 The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history.[27] The Bill of Rights originally restricted only the federal government, and went through a long initial phase of "judicial dormancy;"[28] in the words of historian Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution."[29] Federal jurisdiction regarding criminal law was narrow until the late 19th century when the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act were passed. As federal criminal jurisdiction expanded to include other areas such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the U.S. Supreme Court.[30] The Supreme Court responded to these questions by stating on the one hand that the government powers to search and seizure are limited by the Fourth Amendment so that arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals are prevented[31] and by outlining on the other hand the fundamental purpose of the amendment as guaranteeing "the privacy, dignity and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government, without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function".[32] To protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State is the overriding function of the Fourth Amendment according to the Court in Schmerber v. California (1966),[33] because "[t]he security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police" is "at the core of the Fourth Amendment" and "basic to a free society."[34] Pointing to historic precedents like Entick v Carrington (1765) and Boyd v. United States (1886), the Supreme Court held in Silverman v. United States (1961) that the Fourth Amendments core is the right to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.[27] With a view to Camara v. Municipal Court (1967)[35] the Supreme Court observed in Torres v. Madrid (2021) that the focus of the Fourth Amendment is the privacy and security of individuals, not the particular manner of arbitrary invasion by governmental officials.[36] In Mapp v. Ohio (1961),[37] the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[38]

 The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.

 --Justice William R. Day in the Opinion of the Court in Weeks v. United States (1914).[39]

 Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure;" what constitutes probable cause for these actions; how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed.[40]

 "The Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine involves a complex compromise between public safety and the constitutional right to personal liberty."[41] : 1669 The Fourth Amendment typically requires "a neutral and detached authority interposed between the police and the public", and it is offended by "general warrants" and laws that allow searches to be conducted "indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with [a] crime under investigation",[42] for the "basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of 'unreasonable' searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials."[43]

 The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that a search or an arrest generally requires a judicially sanctioned warrant, because the basic rule under the Fourth Amendment is that arrests and "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable".[44] In order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable, it must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court. The Supreme Court further held in Chandler v. Miller (1997): "To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on 'special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement'. ... When such 'special needs' are alleged, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties."[45] The amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.[46] In Ontario v. Quon (2010), the Court applied the amendment to a municipal government in its capacity as an employer, ruling that the City of Ontario had not violated the Fourth Amendment rights of city police officers by obtaining from the communications company and reviewing transcripts of text messages sent using government-provided pagers.[32][47]

 Search [ edit ]

 Potter Stewart wrote the majority decision in Katz v. United States, which expanded Fourth Amendment protections to electronic surveillance.

 One threshold question in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, has occurred. Early 20th-century Court decisions, such as Olmstead v. United States (1928), held that Fourth Amendment rights applied in cases of physical intrusion, but not to other forms of police surveillance (e.g., wiretaps).[48] In Silverman v. United States (1961), the Court stated of the amendment that "at the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion".[49]

 Fourth Amendment protections expanded significantly with Katz v. United States (1967).[48][50] In Katz, the Supreme Court expanded that focus to embrace an individual's right to privacy, and ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth using a microphone attached to the outside of the glass. While there was no physical intrusion into the booth, the Court reasoned that: 1) Katz, by entering the booth and shutting the door behind him, had exhibited his expectation that "the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world"; and 2) society believes that his expectation was reasonable. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the majority opinion that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places".[51] A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy".[52] Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy thus provided the basis to rule that the government's intrusion, though electronic rather than physical, was a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, and thus necessitated a warrant.[48][53] The Court said it was not recognizing any general right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment,[54] and that this wiretap could have been authorized if proper procedures had been followed.[53]

 This decision in Katz was later developed into the now commonly used two-prong test, adopted in Smith v. Maryland (1979),[55] for determining whether a search has occurred for purposes of the Fourth Amendment:[56][57]

 1. a person "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy"; and
 2. society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.

 The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily shared with third parties.[58][59] In Smith, the Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number.[55][60] However, under Carpenter v. United States (2018), individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding cell phone records even though they themselves turned over that information to "third parties" (i.e. the cell phone companies). Prior to the Carpenter ruling, law enforcement was able to retrieve cell site location information (CSLI) that included where a cell phone user had traveled over many months and with which other cell phone users they had associated. Carpenter v. United States serves as a landmark case because it slightly narrowed the Third Party Doctrine, thus requiring law enforcement to first obtain a search warrant before receiving CSLI records.[61] "In the 5-4 [Carpenter] decision, the Court ruled 'narrowly' in favor of privacy, finding the government had constitutionally violated Mr. Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy by acquiring this private information without a warrant."

 Following Katz, the vast majority of Fourth Amendment search cases have turned on the right to privacy, but in United States v. Jones (2012), the Court ruled that the Katz standard did not replace earlier case law, but rather, has supplemented it.[62] In Jones, law enforcement officers had attached a GPS device on a car's exterior without Jones' knowledge or consent. The Court concluded that Jones was a bailee to the car, and so had a property interest in the car.[63] Therefore, since the intrusion on the vehicle—a common law trespass—was for the purpose of obtaining information, the Court ruled that it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court used similar "trespass" reasoning in Florida v. Jardines (2013), to rule that bringing a drug detection dog to sniff at the front door of a home was a search.[64]

 In certain situations, law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest. Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads the officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a pat-down search ("frisk" the person) to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon.[65] This detention and search is known as a Terry stop. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions.[66] As established in Florida v. Royer (1983), such a search must be temporary, and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as contraband).[67][68]

 Seizure [ edit ]

 The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property,"[69] such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence, or when they participate in an eviction.[70] The amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of persons, including a brief detention.[71]

 A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained.[67][72] The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds.[71]

 In United States v. Mendenhall (1980), the Court held that a person is seized only when, by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained and, in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave.[71] Under Torres v. Madrid (2021), a person is considered to be seized following the use of physical force with the intent to restrain, even if the person manages to escape. In Florida v. Bostick (1991), the Court ruled that as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the police contact is a "citizen encounter" that falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment.[73] If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no seizure and therefore no intrusion upon the person's privacy under the Fourth Amendment.[71]

 When a person is arrested and taken into police custody, he has been seized (i.e., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine traffic stop on the other hand, has been seized, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a Terry stop than to a formal arrest.[74] If a person is not under suspicion of illegal behavior, a law enforcement official is not allowed to place an individual under arrest simply because this person does not wish to state his identity, provided specific state regulations do not specify this to be the case.[75] A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, so long as the arresting officer has probable cause.[76][77] In Maryland v. King (2013), the Court upheld the constitutionality of police swabbing for DNA upon arrests for serious crimes, along the same reasoning that allows police to take fingerprints or photographs of those they arrest and detain.[78][79]

 Exceptions [ edit ]

 The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions. In Delaware v. Prouse (1979), the Court ruled an officer has made an illegal seizure when he stops an automobile and detains the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile, because the officer does not have articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law.[80][81]

 Where society's need is great, no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, certain discretionless checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints.[82] In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints.[83] In Illinois v. Lidster (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints.[84] However, in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[85]

 Warrant [ edit ]

 Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, to lawfully search and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a writ known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional if conducted without a valid warrant[86] and the police must obtain a warrant whenever practicable.[87] Searches and seizures without a warrant are not considered unreasonable if one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.[48][88][89] These exceptions apply "[o]nly in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable."[90]

 In these situations where the warrant requirement doesn't apply a search or seizure nonetheless must be justified by some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.[91] However, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception to the requirement of individualized suspicion. It ruled that, "In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion" a search [or seizure] would still be reasonable.[92]

 Probable cause [ edit ]

 Main article: Probable cause

 The standards of probable cause[93] differ for an arrest and a search. The government has probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.[94] Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.[95]

 When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establish probable cause to believe the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In Carroll v. United States (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard.[96][97] To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States (1925) that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation,"[98] reiterating Carroll ' s assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.[99] It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, non-technical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.[100] In Illinois v. Gates (1983), the Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "totality of the circumstances."[101]

 Exceptions to the warrant requirement [ edit ]

 Consent [ edit ]

 Main article: Consent search

 If a party gives consent to a search, a warrant is not required. There are exceptions and complications to the rule, including the scope of the consent given, whether the consent is voluntarily given, and whether an individual has the right to consent to a search of another's property.[102] In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), the Court ruled that a consent search is still valid even if the police do not inform a suspect of his right to refuse the search.[103] This contrasts with Fifth Amendment rights, which cannot be relinquished without an explicit Miranda warning from police.[104]

 The Court stated in United States v. Matlock (1974) that a third party co-occupant could give consent for a search without violating a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.[105][106] However, in Georgia v. Randolph (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that when two co-occupants are both present, one consenting and the other rejecting the search of a shared residence, the police may not make a search of that residence within the consent exception to the warrant requirement.[107] Per the Court's ruling in Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990),[108] a consent search is still considered valid if police accept in good faith the consent of an "apparent authority," even if that party is later discovered to not have authority over the property in question.[106] A telling case on this subject is Stoner v. California, in which the Court held that police officers could not rely in good faith upon the apparent authority of a hotel clerk to consent to the search of a guest's room.[109]

 Plain view and open fields [ edit ]

 Main articles: Plain view doctrine and Open-fields doctrine

 According to the plain view doctrine as defined in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971),[110] if an officer is lawfully present, he may seize objects that are in "plain view." However, the officer must have had probable cause to believe the objects are contraband.[111] What's more, the criminality of the object in plain view must be obvious by its very nature. In Arizona v. Hicks, the Supreme Court held that an officer stepped beyond the plain view doctrine when he moved a turntable in order to view its serial number to confirm that the turntable was stolen.[112] "A search is a search," proclaimed the Court, "even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."[113]

 Similarly, "open fields" such as pastures, open water, and woods may be searched without a warrant, on the ground that conduct occurring therein would have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The doctrine was first articulated by the Court in Hester v. United States (1924), which stated that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' is not extended to the open fields."[114]

 In Oliver v. United States (1984),[115] the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign and a fence, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path for hundreds of feet, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place, because there was no privacy expectation regarding an open field:

 open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.[116]

 While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person's home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment. The curtilage is "intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically", and is where "privacy expectations are most heightened."[117] However, courts have held aerial surveillance of curtilage not to be included in the protections from unwarranted search so long as the airspace above the curtilage is generally accessible by the public. An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."[118] Courts make this determination by examining "whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."[119] The Court has acknowledged that a doorbell or knocker is typically treated as an invitation, or license, to the public to approach the front door of the home to deliver mail, sell goods, solicit for charities, etc. This license extends to the police, who have the right to try engaging a home's occupant in a "knock and talk" for the purpose of gathering evidence without a warrant. However, they cannot bring a drug detection dog to sniff at the front door of a home without either a warrant or consent of the homeowner or resident.[120]

 Exigent circumstance [ edit ]

 Main article: Exigent circumstance

 Law enforcement officers may also conduct warrantless searches in several types of exigent circumstances where obtaining a warrant is dangerous or impractical. Under Terry v. Ohio (1968) police are permitted to frisk suspects for weapons.[121] The Court also allowed a search of arrested persons in Weeks v. United States (1914) to preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed and to ensure suspects were disarmed.[121][122] In Carroll v. United States (1925),[96] the Court ruled that law enforcement officers could search a vehicle that they suspected of carrying contraband without a warrant.[121] The Court allowed blood to be drawn without a warrant from drunk-driving suspects in Schmerber v. California (1966) on the grounds that the time to obtain a warrant would allow a suspect's blood alcohol content to reduce,[121][123] although this was later modified by Missouri v. McNeely (2013).[124] Warden v. Hayden (1967) provided an exception to the warrant requirement if officers were in "hot pursuit" of a suspect.[121][125]

 A subset of exigent circumstances is the debated community caretaking exception.[126][127]

 Motor vehicle [ edit ]

 Main article: Motor vehicle exception

 The Supreme Court has held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because (1) vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects, and (2) vehicles "can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought."[128] Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in plain view may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause to believe evidence is present, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. However, they may not extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers or consent from the passengers.[129] In Collins v. Virginia (2018),[130] the Court ruled that the motor vehicle exception did not apply to searches of vehicles parked within a residence's curtilage.[131]

 In Arizona v. Gant (2009),[132] the Court ruled that a law enforcement officer needs a warrant before searching a motor vehicle after an arrest of an occupant of that vehicle, unless 1) at the time of the search the person being arrested is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle or 2) police officers have reason to believe evidence for the crime for which the person is being arrested will be found in the vehicle.[133]

 Searches incident to a lawful arrest [ edit ]

 Main article: Searches incident to a lawful arrest

 A common law rule from Great Britain permits searches incident to an arrest without a warrant. This rule has been applied in American law, and has a lengthy common law history.[134] The justification for such a search is to prevent the arrested individual 1.) from destroying evidence or 2.) using a weapon against the arresting officer by disarming the suspect.[135] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply" when "there is no possibility" the suspect could gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence.[136] In Trupiano v. United States (1948), the Supreme Court held that "a search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest."[137] In United States v. Rabinowitz (1950), the Court reversed Trupiano, holding instead that the officers' opportunity to obtain a warrant was not germane to the reasonableness of a search incident to an arrest. Rabinowitz suggested that any area within the "immediate control" of the arrestee could be searched, but it did not define the term.[138] In deciding Chimel v. California (1969), the Supreme Court elucidated its previous decisions. It held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the officer to search the arrestee for weapons and evidence.[139] However, in Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrestee's cellular phone.[140] The Court said that earlier Supreme Court decisions permitting searches incident to an arrest without a warrant do not apply to "modern cellphones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy," and noted that U.S. citizens' cellphones today typically contain "a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane to the intimate."[141][142]

 Border search exception [ edit ]

 Main article: Border search exception

 Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the border search exception.[143][144][145][146] Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion".[145][147] The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion.[145][148][149]

 Foreign intelligence surveillance [ edit ]

 The Supreme Court decision in United States v. U.S. District Court (1972)[150] left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause.[151] Three United States Courts of Appeals have recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause, but tied it to certain requirements.[151] The exception to the Fourth Amendment was formally recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in its 2008 In re Directives[152] decision.[153] The lower court held that "a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States."[153]

 Despite the foregoing citation the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures nonetheless apply to the contents of all communications, whatever the means, because, "a person's private communications are akin to personal papers."[154] Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the point at which the United States government's interest advanced by a particular search or seizure outweighs the loss of individual privacy or freedom of movement that attends the government's action.[155] The United Supreme Court said in Board of Education v. Earls (2002)[156] when 'special needs', beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable the reasonableness of a search is determined by balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.[155] Additionally in Illinois v. Lidster (2004)[157] the Court explained in judging reasonableness it looks to "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty".[155] To protect the telecommunication carriers cooperating with the U.S. government from legal action, the Congress passed a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to permit this type of surveillance.[158]

 Schools and prisons [ edit ]

 In New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that searches in public schools do not require warrants, as long as the searching officers have reasonable grounds for believing the search will result in finding evidence of illegal activity.[89] Similarly, in Samson v. California (2006), the Court ruled that government offices may be searched for evidence of work-related misconduct by government employees on similar grounds.[159] Searches of prison cells are subject to no restraints relating to reasonableness or probable cause.[160] However, in Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009),[161] the Court ruled that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when they strip searched a student based only on another student's claiming to have received drugs from her.[162]

 Exclusionary rule [ edit ]

 Main article: Exclusionary rule

 One way courts enforce the Fourth Amendment is through the use of the exclusionary rule. The rule provides that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally not admissible by the prosecution during the defendant's criminal trial.[163] The Court stated in Elkins v. United States (1960)[164] that the rule's function "is to deter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it."[163]

 The Court adopted the exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United States (1914),[122] prior to which all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court.[165] In Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920)[166] and Nardone v. United States (1939),[167] the Court ruled that leads or other evidence resulting from illegally obtained evidence are also inadmissible in trials. Justice Felix Frankfurter described this secondary evidence in the Nardone decision as the "fruit of the poisonous tree".[168] The Supreme Court rejected incorporating the exclusionary rule by way of the Fourteenth Amendment in Wolf v. Colorado (1949),[169] but Wolf was explicitly overruled in Mapp v. Ohio (1961),[37] making the Fourth Amendment (including the exclusionary rule) applicable in state proceedings.[170]

 The exclusionary rule and its effectiveness have often been controversial, particularly since its 1961 application to state proceedings. Critics charge that the rule hampers police investigation and can result in freeing guilty parties convicted on reliable evidence; other critics say the rule has not been successful in deterring illegal police searches. Proponents argue that the number of criminal convictions overturned under the rule has been minimal and that no other effective mechanism exists to enforce the Fourth Amendment.[163] In 1982, California passed a "Victim's Bill of Rights" containing a provision to repeal the exclusionary rule; though the bill could not affect federally mandated rights under the Fourth Amendment, it blocked the state courts from expanding these protections further.[171][172]

 Limitations [ edit ]

 Since 1974, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the exclusionary rule.[163] In United States v. Calandra (1974),[173] the Court ruled that grand juries may use illegally obtained evidence when questioning witnesses, because "the damage to that institution from the unprecedented extension of the exclusionary rule outweighs the benefit of any possible incremental deterrent effect."[174] Explaining the purpose of the rule, the Court said the rule "is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved."[175]

 Three cases in 1984 further restricted the exclusionary rule:

 * In United States v. Leon (1984),[176] the Court established the "good faith" exception to the rule, ruling that evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant was still admissible, even though the warrant was later found to be defective, unless an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepared an affidavit to seek a warrant, the issuing magistrate abandoned his neutrality, or the warrant lacked sufficient particularity.[177]
 * The Court determined in Nix v. Williams (1984)[178] that "fruit of the poisonous tree" evidence could still be introduced if a prosecutor could demonstrate that it would have been an "inevitable discovery" of legitimate investigation.[179]
 * In Segura v. United States (1984),[180] the Court ruled that evidence illegally found without a search warrant is admissible if the evidence is later found and legally seized based on information independent of the illegal search.[181]

 In Arizona v. Evans (1995)[182] and Herring v. United States (2009),[183] the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence found due to negligence regarding a government database, as long as the arresting police officer relied on that database in "good faith" and the negligence was not pervasive.[184][185] In Davis v. United States (2011),[186] the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to a Fourth Amendment violation resulting from a reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent.[187] In Utah v. Strieff (2016),[188] the Court ruled that evidence obtained from an unlawful police stop would not be excluded from court when the link between the stop and the evidence's discovery was "attenuated" by the discovery of an outstanding warrant during the stop.[189]

 The Supreme Court has also held the exclusionary rule to not apply in the following circumstances:

 * evidence illegally seized by a "private actor" (i.e., not a governmental employee)[190]
 * tax hearings[191]
 * evidence collected by U.S. Customs agents[192]
 * deportation hearings[193]
 * evidence seized by probation or parole officers[194]
 * probation or parole revocation hearings[195]

 Metadata [ edit ]

 See also: Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), Upstream collection, Mass surveillance, and Targeted surveillance

 On December 16, 2013, in Klayman v. Obama, a United States district court ruled that the mass collection of metadata of Americans' telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the Fourth Amendment.[196][197][198][199][200][201][202] The court granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs[203] and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. The court stayed the ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing the "significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues."[202]

 However, in ACLU v. Clapper, a United States district court ruled that the U.S. government's global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can work only if everyone's calls are included.[204] The court also ruled that Congress legally set up the program and it does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. The court concluded that the telephone data being swept up by NSA did not belong to telephone users, but to the telephone companies. Also, the court held that when NSA obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not even a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that the controlling precedent is Smith v. Maryland, saying "Smith's bedrock holding is that an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties."[205][206][207][208] The American Civil Liberties Union declared on January 2, 2014, that it will appeal the ruling that NSA bulk phone record collection is legal. "The government has a legitimate interest in tracking the associations of suspected terrorists, but tracking those associations does not require the government to subject every citizen to permanent surveillance," deputy ACLU legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.[209]

 See also [ edit ]

 * Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
 * Fourth Amendment Protection Act
 * NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)#Fourth Amendment issues
 * Parallel construction
 * Privacy laws of the United States
 * Special needs exception
 * Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
 * subpoena ad testificandum
 * subpoena duces tecum

 Notes [ edit ]

 1. ^ Effects are items of property. [1]

 Citations

 1. ^ Denniston, Lyle (April 25, 2014). "Argument preview: Police and cellphone privacy". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved July 1, 2014 .
 2. ^ "Bill of Rights Transcript Text". October 30, 2015.
 3. ^ Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
 4. ^ a b c Kilman & Costello (2006) , p. 1281–1282.
 5. ^ Entick v Carrington , 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291; 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817 (K. B. 1765)
 6. ^ Levy (1995) , p. 150.
 7. ^ Fuqua, David (Fall 2014). "Technology and the Fourth Amendment: History and Application of Principles of Decision in Light of New Means of Surveillance". FDCC Quarterly. 64: 2–25.
 8. ^ Davies (1999) .
 9. ^ Wroth & Zobel (1965) , p. 113, fn 22: "The writs of assistance did not become an issue until news of King George II's death arrived in Boston December 27, 1760."
 10. ^ Wroth & Zobel (1965) , p. 113, fn 23.
 11. ^ Lasson (1937) , p. 57–61.
 12. ^ Adams & Adams (1856) , p. 59.
 13. ^ Lasson (1937) , p. 66.
 14. ^ a b Levy (1995) , p. 161.
 15. ^ Roots, Roger (January 13, 2010). "The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule" (PDF) . Gonzaga Law Review. p. 20 (fn. 118). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 15, 2013 . Retrieved January 8, 2012 .
 16. ^ "Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts".
 17. ^ a b Cuddihy, William (1986). "Fourth Amendment, Historical Origins of". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on September 21, 2013 . Retrieved July 27, 2013 .
 18. ^ Beeman (2009) , p. 341–43.
 19. ^ Maier (2010) , p. 431.
 20. ^ " Amendment IV ," The Founders Constitution , University of Chicago Press.
 21. ^ Gordon, John D. (III). "Egbert Benson: A Nationalist in Congress", in Neither Separate Nor Equal: Congress in the 1790s , pp. 69-73 (edited by Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon of the United States Capitol Historical Society, published by Ohio University Press in 2000).
 22. ^ "Bill of Rights". National Archives. Archived from the original on April 4, 2013 . Retrieved April 4, 2013 .
 23. ^ Wood (2009) , p. 71.
 24. ^ a b c Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Bill of Rights (United States)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on September 21, 2013 . Retrieved July 16, 2013 .
 25. ^ a b Labunski (2006) , p. 245.
 26. ^ Labunski (2006) , p. 255.
 27. ^ a b "Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), at 511". Justia US Supreme Court Center. March 6, 1961 . Retrieved January 26, 2021 .
 28. ^ Labunski (2006) , p. 258–59.
 29. ^ Wood (2009) , p. 72.
 30. ^ Lasson (1937) , p. 106.
 31. ^ "United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), at 427". Justia US Supreme Court Center. July 6, 1976 . Retrieved August 9, 2020 .
 32. ^ a b Ontario v. Quon , 130 S.Ct. 2619, No. 08-1332 , 560 U.S. 746 (2010).
 33. ^ "Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), at 767". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 20, 1966 . Retrieved September 3, 2020 .
 34. ^ "Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), at 27". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 27, 1949 . Retrieved September 3, 2020 .
 35. ^ "Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), at 528". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 5, 1967 . Retrieved April 10, 2021 .
 36. ^ "Roxanne Torres v. Janice Madrid, et al., Opinion of the Court, Slip Opinion page 9" (PDF) . United States Supreme Court. March 25, 2021. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 5, 2021 . Retrieved April 10, 2021 .
 37. ^ a b Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
 38. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Mapp v. Ohio". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on September 21, 2013 . Retrieved July 28, 2013 .
 39. ^ "Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), at 391-392". Justia US Supreme Court Center. February 24, 1914 . Retrieved January 18, 2021 .
 40. ^ Arenella, Peter (1992). "Fourth Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on September 21, 2013 . Retrieved July 28, 2013 .
 41. ^ Pedro, Portia (April 1, 2008). "Recent Case, Ninth Circuit Considers Community's Racial Tension with Police in Finding Illegal Seizure and Lack of Voluntary Consent. — United States V. Washington, 490 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2007)". Harvard Law Review. 121 (6): 1669.
 42. ^ Berger v. New York , 388 U.S. 41, 54,59 (1967).
 43. ^ Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco , 387 U.S. 523 (1967).
 44. ^ Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 (2009), at page 338.
 45. ^ Chandler v. Miller , 520 U.S. 305 (1997).
 46. ^ United States v. Jacobsen , 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (punctuation omitted).
 47. ^ "City of Ontario v. Quon". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved December 28, 2013 .
 48. ^ a b c d Schwartz, Herman (1986). "Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on September 21, 2013 . Retrieved July 28, 2013 .
 49. ^ Silverman v. United States , 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961).
 50. ^ Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
 51. ^ Katz , 389 U.S. at 351.
 52. ^ Katz , 389 U.S. at 351; at 360-61 (Harlan, J., concurring)
 53. ^ a b Schroeder, Steve (2012). The Lure: The True Story of How the Department of Justice Brought Down Two of the World's Most Dangerous Cyber Criminals. Cengage Learning. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-4354-5713-3.
 54. ^ Morgan, Candace. " Challenges and Issues Today " in Intellectual Freedom Manual , pp. 41–42 (American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, 2010).
 55. ^ a b Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
 56. ^ Freiwald, Susan (2007). "First Principles of Communications Privacy" (PDF) . Stanford Technology Law Review (3). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 17, 2013.
 57. ^ Sorosky, Schuyler. " United States v. Forrester: An Unwarranted Narrowing of the Fourth Amendment ," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review , Vol. 41, p. 1121, 1126 (2008).
 58. ^ Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979); United States v. Miller , 425 U.S. 435, 440-41 (1976).
 59. ^ "Smith v. Maryland". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law . Retrieved January 13, 2014 . "Because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily given to third parties, the telephone numbers that are regularly and voluntarily provided to telephone companies by their customers do not gain Fourth Amendment protections."
 60. ^ Smith , 442 U.S. at 742.
 61. ^ Howe, Amy (June 22, 2018). "Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for cellphone location information". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 22, 2018 .
 62. ^ United States v. Jones , No. 10-1259 , 565 U.S. ___ (2012).
 63. ^ Denniston, Lyle (January 23, 2012). "Opinion recap: Tight limit on police GPS use". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved January 23, 2012 .
 64. ^ Florida v. Jardines , No. 11-564 , 569 U.S. ___ (2013).
 65. ^ Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
 66. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Sibron v. New York 392 U.S. 40 (1968)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 28, 2013 .
 67. ^ a b Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491, 497–98 (1983).
 68. ^ "Florida v. Royer". casebriefs.com . Retrieved July 28, 2013 .
 69. ^ Jacobsen , 466 U.S. at 113.
 70. ^ Soldal v. Cook County , 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992). "The right against unreasonable seizures would be no less transgressed if the seizure of the house was undertaken to collect evidence, verify compliance with a housing regulation, effect an eviction by the police, or on a whim, for no reason at all."
 71. ^ a b c d United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 (1980).
 72. ^ Dunaway v. New York , 442 U.S. 200, 210 n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2255 n. 12, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979).
 73. ^ Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 439 (1991).
 74. ^ Knowles v. Iowa , 525 U.S. 113, 117 (1998).
 75. ^ Moritz, Rob (April 5, 2008). "Fed appeals court says refusal to identify no cause for arrest". Arkansas News Bureau. Archived from the original on June 13, 2008 . Retrieved April 6, 2012 .
 76. ^ Virginia v. Moore , No. 06-1082 , 553 U.S. 164 (2008).
 77. ^ "Court allows search and seizure in Va. case". USA Today. April 23, 2008 . Retrieved April 11, 2012 .
 78. ^ Maryland v. King , No. 12-207 , 569 U.S. ___ (2013).
 79. ^ June, Daniel. (June 3, 2013) "Supreme Court Approves Use of DNA Swabbing in Serious Arrests" . JDJournal . Accessed August 2, 2013.
 80. ^ Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
 81. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Automobile search". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 28, 2013 .
 82. ^ United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
 83. ^ Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
 84. ^ Illinois v. Lidster , 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
 85. ^ City of Indianapolis v. Edmond , 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
 86. ^ Maryland v. Dyson , 527 U.S. 465 (1999).
 87. ^ Andrews v. Fuoss , 417 F.3d 813 , 819 (8th Cir. 2005).
 88. ^ Flippo v. West Virginia , 528 U.S. 11 (1999); California v. Acevedo , 500 U.S. 565 (1991).
 89. ^ a b New Jersey v. T. L. O. , 469 U.S. 325 (1985) . "[W]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically delineated and well-recognized exceptions. ... full-scale searches—whether conducted in accordance with the warrant requirement or pursuant to one of its exceptions—are 'reasonable' in Fourth Amendment terms only on a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime will be found in the place to be searched."
 90. ^ T. L. O. , 469 U.S., Blackmun, J. , concurring.
 91. ^ Keeley III., Charles J. (2006). "Article 8 – Subway Searches: Which Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements Applies to Suspicionless Searches of Mass Transit Passengers To Prevent Terrorism?". Fordham Law Review. 74 (6): 3236 . Retrieved December 28, 2013 .
 92. ^ Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association , 489 U.S. 602 (1989).
 93. ^ Senior Specialist Charles Doyle (January 30, 2006). "CSR Memorandum to the United Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled "Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Act"" (PDF) . Congressional Research Service via the Federation of American Scientists. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 24, 2019 . Retrieved September 27, 2019 .
 94. ^ Beck v. Ohio , 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964).
 95. ^ Johnson v. United States , 333 U.S. 10 (1948).
 96. ^ a b Carroll v. United States , 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
 97. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Carroll v. United States 267 U.S. 132 (1925)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 28, 2013 .
 98. ^ Dumbra v. United States , 268 U.S. 435 (1925).
 99. ^ Carroll , 267 U.S. at 162.
 100. ^ Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983).
 101. ^ Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
 102. ^ Holcomb, J. W. (March 2003). Obtaining Written Consent to Search . FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
 103. ^ Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
 104. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 412 U.S. 218 (1973)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 105. ^ United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164 (1974).
 106. ^ a b Crawford, Kimberly A. (August 1, 1996). "Consent searches: guidelines for officers". The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. [ dead link ]
 107. ^ Georgia v. Randolph , 547 U.S. 103 (2006).
 108. ^ Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
 109. ^ Stoner v. California , 376 U.S. 483 (1969).
 110. ^ Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
 111. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Plain View Doctrine". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 112. ^ Arizona v. Hicks , 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
 113. ^ 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987).
 114. ^ Hester v. United States , 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
 115. ^ Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
 116. ^ Oliver , 466 U.S. at 179.
 117. ^ California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986).
 118. ^ United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987).
 119. ^ Dunn , 480 U.S. at 301.
 120. ^ Jardines , 569 U. S. (slip op., at 6). "This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation's Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters."
 121. ^ a b c d e Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Exigent Circumstances Search". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 122. ^ a b Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
 123. ^ Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
 124. ^ "Missouri v. McNeely" (PDF) . Supreme Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 14, 2014 . Retrieved December 5, 2014 .
 125. ^ Warden v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 (1967).
 126. ^ "Courts in a muddle over 4th Amendment's community caretaking exception". ABA Journal. David L. Hudson . Retrieved September 29, 2018 .{{cite news}} : CS1 maint: others ( link )
 127. ^ "The Community Caretaker Function Exception to the Warrant Requirement | Virginia Police Legal Bulletin | Radford University". www.radford.edu. Archived from the original on September 30, 2018 . Retrieved September 29, 2018 .
 128. ^ Carroll v. United States , 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925)
 129. ^ Hendrie, Edward (August 1, 2005). "The motor vehicle exception". The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. [ dead link ]
 130. ^ Collins v. Virginia , No. 16-1027 , ___ U.S. ___ (2018)
 131. ^ Howe, Amy (May 29, 2018). "Opinion analysis: Justices decline to extend Fourth Amendment's "automobile exception"". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved May 29, 2018 .
 132. ^ Arizona v. Gant , No. 07-542 , 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
 133. ^ Moore, Kristina (April 21, 2009). "Limits on warrantless car searches, compensation to terrorism victims, veterans benefit disputes". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved April 22, 2009 .
 134. ^ Kerr, Orin (December 14, 2010) The Origins of the "Search Incident to Arrest" Exception , The Volokh Conspiracy
 135. ^ "Riley v. California – Concerning the Constitutionality of a Warrantless Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest". Electronic Privacy Information Center . Retrieved July 1, 2014 .
 136. ^ Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009).
 137. ^ Trupiano v. United States , 334 U.S. 699 (1948).
 138. ^ United States v. Rabinowitz , 339 U.S. 56 (1950).
 139. ^ Chimel v. California , 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
 140. ^ Riley v. California No. 13-132 , 573 U.S. ___ (2014).
 141. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2014). "Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones". The New York Times . Retrieved June 25, 2014 .
 142. ^ Charlie Savage, Hannah Fairfield and Josh Williams (June 25, 2014). "Between the Lines of the Cellphone Privacy Ruling". The New York Times . Retrieved June 25, 2014 .
 143. ^ Henderson v. United States (1967) , 390 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1967).
 144. ^ United States v. Guadalupe-Garza , 421 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1970).
 145. ^ a b c Upright, Scott J. (October 1, 2009). "Suspicionless border seizures of electronic files: the overextension of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment". William and Mary Law Review. 51 (1): 291. [ dead link ]
 146. ^ United States v. Flores-Montano , 541 U.S. 149 (2004), United States v. Montoya De Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531 (1985), and United States v. Ramsey , 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
 147. ^ Flores-Montano , 541 U.S. at 152–53.
 148. ^ United States v. Ickes , 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005).
 149. ^ United States v. Arnold , 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008).
 150. ^ United States v. U.S. District Court , 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
 151. ^ a b Vladeck, Steve (May 23, 2013). "More on Clapper and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Exception". Lawfare Blog – Hard National Security Choices. Archived from the original on July 16, 2019 . Retrieved July 17, 2013 .
 152. ^ Selya, Bruce M. (August 22, 2008). "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF) . U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 3, 2019 . Retrieved July 15, 2013 .
 153. ^ a b Vladeck, Steve (May 22, 2013). "Why Clapper Matters: The Future of Programmatic Surveillance". Lawfare Blog – Hard National Security Choices . Retrieved July 17, 2013 .
 154. ^ John D Bates (October 3, 2011). "[redacted]" (PDF) . United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Electronic Frontier Foundation. pp. 73–74. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 11, 2019.
 155. ^ a b c Senior Specialist Charles Doyle (January 30, 2006). "CSR Memorandum to the United Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled "Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Act"" (PDF) . Congressional Research Service via the Federation of American Scientists. pp. 1 and 6–8 . Retrieved September 27, 2019 .
 156. ^ Board of Education v. Earls , 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
 157. ^ Illinois v. Lidster , 540 U.S. 419 (2004)
 158. ^ Ferraro, Thomas (July 9, 2008). "Bush wins passage of US spy bill to protect telecoms". Reuters. Reuters . Retrieved September 27, 2019 .
 159. ^ Samson v. California , 547 U.S. 843 (2006).
 160. ^ Goring, Darlene C. (1984). "Fourth Amendment—Prison Cells: Is there a Right to Privacy". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 75 (3): 609–629. doi:10.2307/1143635. JSTOR 1143635 . Retrieved September 19, 2013 .
 161. ^ Safford Unified School District v. Redding , No. 08-479 , 557 U.S. ___ (2009).
 162. ^ Denniston, Lyle (June 25, 2009). "Analysis: Some expansion of student privacy". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 25, 2009 .
 163. ^ a b c d Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Exclusionary Rule". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on November 11, 2013 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 164. ^ Elkins v. United States , 364 U.S. 206 (1960).
 165. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 166. ^ Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
 167. ^ Nardone v. United States , 308 U.S. 338 (1939).
 168. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States 251 U.S. 385 (1920)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 169. ^ Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
 170. ^ "Mapp v. Ohio". Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . 2001. Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 171. ^ "California's Backfire on Crime". The New York Times. June 21, 1982 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 172. ^ Crisera (1990) , p. 1587.
 173. ^ United States v. Calandra , 414 U.S. 338 (1974).
 174. ^ Calandra , 414 U.S. at 354.
 175. ^ Calandra , 414 U.S. at 349.
 176. ^ United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
 177. ^ Leon , 468 U.S. at 926.
 178. ^ Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
 179. ^ Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Nix v. Williams 467 U.S. 431 (1984)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on June 10, 2014 . Retrieved July 31, 2013 .
 180. ^ Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 (1984).
 181. ^ Hendrie, Edward M. (September 1, 1997). "The Inevitable Discovery Exception to the Exclusionary Rule". The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. [ dead link ]
 182. ^ Arizona v. Evans , 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
 183. ^ Herring v. United States , 555 U.S. 135 (2009).
 184. ^ Stinger, C. Maureen (February 13, 1996). "Arizona v. Evans: Adapting the Exclusionary Rule to Advancing Computer Technology". The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology . Retrieved January 16, 2009 .
 185. ^ "Court says evidence is valid despite police error" . Retrieved January 14, 2009 .
 186. ^ Davis v. United States , 131 S.Ct. 2419, No. 09-11328 , 564 U.S. ___ (2011).
 187. ^ Denniston, Lyle (June 25, 2011). "Opinion analysis: The fading "exclusionary rule"". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved November 25, 2011 .
 188. ^ Utah v. Strieff , No. 14-1373 , 579 U.S. ___ (2016)
 189. ^ Waimberg, Joshua. "The Supreme Court's Utah v. Strieff decision and the Fourth Amendment". National Constitution Center. National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on June 23, 2016 . Retrieved June 25, 2016 .
 190. ^ Burdeau v. McDowell , 256 U.S. 465 (1921).
 191. ^ United States v. Janis , 428 U.S. 433 (1976).
 192. ^ United States v. Andreas , 463 U.S. 765 (1983).
 193. ^ INS v. Lopez-Mendoza , 468 U.S. 1032 (1984).
 194. ^ Griffin v. Wisconsin , 483 U.S. 868 (1987); United States v. Knights , 534 U.S. 112 (2001).
 195. ^ Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 (1998).
 196. ^ Leon, Richard (December 16, 2013). "Federal judge rules NSA program is likely unconstitutional". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 30, 2017 . Retrieved December 17, 2013 .
 197. ^ Savage, Charlie (December 16, 2013). "Judge Questions Legality of N.S.A. Phone Records". The New York Times . Retrieved December 18, 2013 .
 198. ^ Bill Mears; Evan Perez (December 17, 2013). "Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional". CNN . Retrieved December 18, 2013 .
 199. ^ Kravets, David (December 16, 2013). "Court Says NSA Bulk Telephone Spying Is Unconstitutional". Wired . Retrieved December 18, 2013 .
 200. ^ Kevin Johnson; Richard Wolf (December 16, 2013). "Federal judge rules against NSA spying". USA Today . Retrieved December 18, 2013 .
 201. ^ Gerstein, Josh (December 16, 2013). "Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional". Politico . Retrieved December 18, 2013 .
 202. ^ a b Ellen Nakashima; Ann E. Marimow (December 16, 2013). "Judge: NSA's collecting of phone records is probably unconstitutional". The Washington Post . Retrieved December 17, 2013 .
 203. ^ Spencer Ackerman; Dan Roberts (December 16, 2013). "NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules". The Guardian . Retrieved December 18, 2013 .
 204. ^ Pauley III, William H. (December 27, 2013). "United States District Court Southern District of New York: American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper (13 Civ. 3994) (WHP))" (PDF) . American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved December 28, 2013 .
 205. ^ Adam Liptak; Michael S. Schmidt (December 27, 2013). "Judge Upholds N.S.A.'s Bulk Collection of Data on Calls". The New York Times . Retrieved December 28, 2013 .
 206. ^ Denniston, Lyle (December 27, 2013). "Judge upholds NSA's phone data sweeps (UPDATED)". Scotusblog . Retrieved December 28, 2013 .
 207. ^ Peterson, Andrea (December 27, 2013). "The most Kafkaesque paragraph from today's NSA ruling". The Washington Post . Retrieved December 28, 2013 .
 208. ^ Horwitz, Sari (December 27, 2013). "NSA collection of phone data is lawful, federal judge rules". The Washington Post . Retrieved December 28, 2013 .
 209. ^ Ackermann, Spencer (January 2, 2014). "ACLU will appeal ruling that NSA bulk phone record collection is legal". The Guardian . Retrieved January 4, 2014 .

 References [ edit ]

 * Adams, Charles Francis; Adams, John (1856). The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author. Vol. 1. Little, Brown.
 * Beeman, Richard (2009). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House.
 * Crisera, Maria Lisa (1990). "Reevaluation of the California Corpus Delicti Rule: A Response to the Invitation of Proposition 8". California Law Review. 78 (6): 1571–1597. doi:10.2307/3480804. JSTOR 3480804.
 * Davies, Thomas Y. (1999). "Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment". Michigan Law Review. 98 (3): 547–750. doi:10.2307/1290314. JSTOR 1290314.
 * Kilman, Johnny; Costello, George, eds. (2006). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. GPO.
 * Labunski, Richard E. (2006). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press.
 * Lasson, Nelson B. (1937). The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johns Hopkins University Press.
 * Levy, Leonard Williams (1995). Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights, and History. Transaction Publishers.
 * Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. Simon and Schuster.
 * Wood, Gordon S. (2009). Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815. Oxford University Press.
 * Wroth, Kinvin; Zobel, Hiller B., eds. (1965). Legal Papers of John Adams. Vol. 2. Belknap Press.
 * Fourth Amendment Lesson Plan (PDF) . U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. February 10, 2010.

 External links [ edit ]

 Wikiquote has quotations related to Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 * CRS Annotated Constitution: Fourth Amendment, Cornell University
 * v  
 * t  
 * e  
 United States 4th Amendment case law 
 Scope of the Fourth Amendment  
 * Boyd v. United States (1886) 
 * United States v. Lee (1927) 
 * Olmstead v. United States (1928) 
 * Abel v. United States (1960) 
 * Silverman v. United States (1961) 
 * Katz v. United States (1967) 
 * United States v. Knotts (1983) 
 * United States v. Place (1983) 
 * United States v. Karo (1984) 
 * California v. Greenwood (1988) 
 * Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n (1989) 
 * United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) 
 * Bond v. United States (2000) 
 * Kyllo v. United States (2001) 
 What constitutes a search * Illinois v. Caballes (2005) 
 * United States v. Jones (2012) 
 * Florida v. Jardines (2013) 
 * Klayman v. Obama (D.D.C. 2013) 
 * ACLU v. Clapper (D.D.C. 2013) 
  * Hester v. United States (1924) 
 Open-fields doctrine * Oliver v. United States (1984) 
  * United States v. Dunn (1987) 
  * California v. Ciraolo (1986) 
 Aerial surveillance * Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986) 
  * Florida v. Riley (1989) 
  * United States v. White (1971) 
 Third-party doctrine * United States v. Miller (1976) 
  * Smith v. Maryland (1979) 
  * Carpenter v. United States (2018) 
  
 * Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892) 
 * Hale v. Henkel (1906) 
 * Terry v. Ohio (1968) 
 * United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 
 * Florida v. Royer (1983) 
 What constitutes a seizure * INS v. Delgado (1984) 
 * California v. Hodari D. (1991) 
 * Florida v. Bostick (1991) 
 * Soldal v. Cook County (1992) 
 * United States v. Drayton (2002) 
 * Brendlin v. California (2007) 
 * Torres v. Madrid (2021) 
 Fourth Amendment standing * Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 
 * Byrd v. United States (2018) 
  
  
 Probable cause  
 * Brinegar v. United States (1949) 
 * Aguilar v. Texas (1964)  
 * Spinelli v. United States (1969) 
 * Illinois v. Gates (1983)  
 * Ornelas v. United States (1996) 
 * Whren v. United States (1996) 
 * Maryland v. Pringle (2003)  
 * Devenpeck v. Alford (2004)  
 * Florida v. Harris (2013)  
 * District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018) 
  
 Reasonable suspicion: Investigative detentions and frisks 
 * Terry v. Ohio (1968)  
 * United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) 
 * Delaware v. Prouse (1979)  
 * Brown v. Texas (1979)  
 * Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)  
 * United States v. Cortez (1981) 
 * United States v. Place (1983) 
 * Michigan v. Long (1983)  
 * Minnesota v. Dickerson (1996) 
 * Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)  
 * Florida v. J. L. (2000)  
 * United States v. Arvizu (2002) 
 * Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) 
 * Arizona v. Johnson (2009)  
 * Navarette v. California (2014) 
 * Heien v. North Carolina (2014) 
 * Kansas v. Glover (2020)  
  
 Warrant requirement  
 * Johnson v. United States (1948) 
 * Franks v. Delaware (1978)  
 * Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)  
 * Maryland v. Garrison (1987) 
 * United States v. Grubbs (2006) 
 * Los Angeles County v. Rettelle (2006) 
 * Boyd v. United States (1886) 
 Mere evidence rule * Hale v. Henkel (1906) 
 * Warden v. Hayden (1967) 
 Neutral and detached magistrate * Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 
 Warrants directed at third parties * Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978) 
 Knock-and-announce * Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) 
  
  
 Exceptions to warrant requirement 
 * Warden v. Hayden (1967) 
 * United States v. Chadwick (1977) 
 * Payton v. New York (1980) 
 Exigent circumstances * Welsh v. Wisconsin (1986) 
 * Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) 
 * Kentucky v. King (2011) 
 * Caniglia v. Strom (2021) 
 * Lange v. California (2021) 
 * Stoner v. California (1968) 
 * Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 
 Consent searches * United States v. Matlock (1974) 
 * Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) 
 * Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 
 * Fernandez v. California (2014) 
 * Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 
 Plain view * Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 
 * Horton v. California (1990) 
 * Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 
 * Carroll v. United States (1925) 
 * Chambers v. Maroney (1970) 
 * Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) 
 * United States v. Ross (1982) 
 Vehicle searches * California v. Carney (1985) 
 * Florida v. Jimeno (1991) 
 * California v. Acevedo (1991) 
 * Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) 
 * Florida v. White (1999) 
 * Collins v. Virginia (2018) 
 * Trupiano v. United States (1948) 
 * United States v. Rabinowitz (1950) 
 * Chimel v. California (1969) 
 * United States v. Robinson (1973) 
 Searches incident to arrest * United States v. Chadwick (1977) 
 * New York v. Belton (1981) 
 * Knowles v. Iowa (1998) 
 * Thornton v. United States (2004) 
 * Arizona v. Gant (2009) 
 * Riley v. California (2014) 
 * Schmerber v. California (1966) 
 * Cupp v. Murphy (1973) 
 Breathalyzers, blood samples, DNA * Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 
 * Maryland v. King (2013) 
 * Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) 
 * Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) 
 Protective sweeps * Maryland v. Buie (1990) 
 Inventory searches * South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 
 * Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) 
 * United States v. Ortiz (1975) 
 Border searches * United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) 
 * United States v. Ramsey (1977) 
 * United States v. Montoya De Hernandez (1985) 
 * United States v. Flores-Montano (2004) 
 * Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 
 Checkpoints * City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) 
 * Illinois v. Lidster (2004) 
 * New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985) 
 * O'Connor v. Ortega (1987) 
 * Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n (1989) 
 * National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)
 Students, employees, and patients * Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) 
 * Chandler v. Miller (1997) 
 * Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001) 
 * Board of Education v. Earls (2002) 
 * Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) 
 * City of Ontario v. Quon (2010) 
 Property of probationers and parolees * Samson v. California (2006) 
 * Frank v. Maryland (1959) 
 Administrative inspections * Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) 
 * City of Los Angeles v. Patel (2015) 
 * Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 
 Searches in jails and prisons * Hudson v. Palmer (1984) 
 * Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012) 
 * United States v. Watson (1976) 
 * Payton v. New York (1980) 
 Warrantless arrests * Welsh v. Wisconsin (1983) 
 * County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) 
 * Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) 
 * Virginia v. Moore (2008) 
  
  
 Seizures  
 * Dunaway v. New York (1979) 
 Distinguishing stops and arrests * Florida v. Royer (1983) 
 * United States v. Place (1983) 
 Seizure of premises awaiting warrant * Illinois v. McArthur (2001) 
 * Michigan v. Summers (1981) 
 Detention incident to search * Muehler v. Mena (2005) 
 * Bailey v. United States (2013) 
 Detention during vehicle stop * Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 
 * Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 
 * Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 
 * Graham v. Connor (1989) 
 Excessive force * Scott v. Harris (2007) 
 * Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014) 
 * Mullenix v. Luna (2015) 
  
  
 Remedies  
 Origins * Weeks v. United States (1914) 
 * Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) 
 Impeachment exception * James v. Illinois (1990) 
 * United States v. Leon (1984) 
 Good-faith exception * Herring v. United States (2009) 
 * Davis v. United States (2011) 
 Exclusionary rule Independent source * Murray v. United States (1988) 
 Inevitable discovery * Nix v. Williams (1984) 
 Attenuation * Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 
 * Utah v. Strieff (2016) 
 No-knock searches * Hudson v. Michigan (2006) 
 Habeas corpus review * Stone v. Powell (1976) 
 * Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 
  
 Federal * Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971) 
 * Egbert v. Boule (2022) 
 Civil suit State * 42 U.S.C. § 1983 
 * Monroe v. Pape (1961) 
  
  
  
 Incorporation against States  
 * Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 
 Unreasonable search and seizure * Rochin v. California (1952) 
 * Elkins v. United States (1960) 
 * Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 
 Warrant requirements * Ker v. California (1963) 
 * Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 
  
  
 
 * v 
 * t 
 * e 
 Constitution of the United States
 * Preamble  
 * I  
 * II  
 Articles * III  
 * IV  
 * V  
 * VI  
 * VII  
  * 1 
  * 2 
  * 3 
  * 4 
 Bill of Rights * 5 
  * 6 
  * 7 
  * 8 
  * 9 
  * 10 
 1795–1804 * 11 
  * 12 
  * 13 
 Reconstruction * 14 
  * 15 
  * 16 
  * 17 
  * 18 
  * 19 
  * 20 
 20th century * 21 
  * 22 
  * 23 
  * 24 
  * 25 
  * 26 
 Amendments * 27 
   
  * Congressional Apportionment 
  * Titles of Nobility 
 Unratified * Corwin Amendment 
  * Child Labor 
  * Equal Rights 
  * District of Columbia Voting Rights
  * Balanced budget 
  * Blaine amendment 
  * Bricker amendment 
  * Campaign finance reform 
  * Christian amendment 
  * Crittenden Compromise 
  * Electoral College abolition 
  * Equal Opportunity to Govern 
 Proposed * Federal Marriage 
  * Flag Desecration 
  * Human Life 
  * "Liberty" amendment 
  * Ludlow amendment 
  * Parental Rights amendment 
  * School Prayer 
  * Single subject 
  * Victims' Rights 
 * Convention to propose amendments 
 * State ratifying conventions 
   
 * History  
 * Articles of Confederation 
 * Mount Vernon Conference 
 * Annapolis Convention 
 * Philadelphia Convention 
  + Virginia Plan 
  + New Jersey Plan 
  + Connecticut Compromise 
  + Three-fifths Compromise 
  + Committee of Detail 
  + List of Framers 
 Formation + Signing 
  + Printing 
  + Independence Hall 
  + Syng inkstand 
 * The Federalist Papers 
 * Anti-Federalist Papers 
 * Massachusetts Compromise 
 * Virginia Ratifying Convention 
 * New York Circular Letter 
 * Hillsborough Convention 
 * Fayetteville Convention 
 * Rhode Island ratification 
 * Drafting and ratification timeline 
 * Appointments 
 * Appropriations 
 * Assistance of Counsel 
 * Case or Controversy 
 * Citizenship 
 * Commerce  
 * Compact  
 * Compulsory Process 
 * Confrontation 
 * Congressional enforcement 
 * Contract  
 * Copyright and Patent 
 * Double Jeopardy 
 * Due Process 
 * Elections  
 * Engagements 
 * Equal Protection 
 * Establishment 
 * Exceptions 
 * Excessive Bail 
 * Ex post facto 
 * Extradition 
 * Free Exercise 
 * Free Speech 
 * Fugitive Slave 
 * Full Faith and Credit 
 * General Welfare 
 * Guarantee  
 * Impeachment 
 * Import-Export 
 * Ineligibility 
 Clauses * Militia  
 * Natural-born citizen 
 * Necessary and Proper 
 * New States 
 * No Religious Test 
 * Oath or Affirmation 
 * Origination 
 * Pardon  
 * Petition  
 * Postal  
 * Presentment 
 * Presidential succession 
 * Privileges and Immunities 
 * Privileges or Immunities 
 * Recess appointment 
 * Recommendation 
 * Self-Incrimination 
 * Speech or Debate 
 * Speedy Trial 
 * State of the Union 
 * Supremacy  
 * Suspension 
 * Take Care  
 * Takings  
 * Taxing and Spending 
 * Territorial 
 * Title of Nobility (Foreign Emoluments) 
 * Treaty  
 * Trial by Jury 
 * Vesting  
 * Vicinage  
 * War Powers 
 * Balance of powers 
 * Concurrent powers 
 * Constitutional law 
 * Criminal procedure 
 * Criminal sentencing 
 * Dormant Commerce Clause 
 * Enumerated powers 
 * Equal footing 
 * Executive privilege 
 * Implied powers 
 Interpretation * Incorporation of the Bill of Rights 
 * Judicial review 
 * Nondelegation doctrine 
 * Plenary power 
 * Preemption 
 * Reserved powers 
 * Saxbe fix  
 * Separation of church and state 
 * Separation of powers 
 * Symmetric federalism 
 * Taxation power 
 * Unitary executive theory 
 * National Archives 
  + Charters of Freedom Rotunda 
 * Independence Mall 
 * Constitution Day 
 Display * Constitution Gardens 
 and legacy * National Constitution Center 
 * Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting) 
 * A More Perfect Union (film) 
 * USS Constitution 
 * Worldwide influence 
 Related * Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 
 United States portal • Law portal
 
 Authority control
 * VIAF 
 General + 1 
 * WorldCat (via VIAF)
 * Germany 
 National libraries * Israel 
 * United States 
 
 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=1136842620"
 Categories:
 * United States Fourth Amendment case law
 * 1791 in American law
 * 1791 in American politics
 * United States Bill of Rights
 * Government documents of the United States
 * Police legislation
 * Privacy law in the United States
 * Searches and seizures
 * United States criminal constitutional law
 Hidden categories:
 * Subscription required using via
 * Pages containing links to subscription-only content
 * CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty
 * All articles with dead external links
 * Articles with dead external links from July 2021
 * CS1 maint: others
 * Articles with short description
 * Short description matches Wikidata
 * Use mdy dates from January 2018
 * Good articles
 * Articles with VIAF identifiers
 * Articles with WorldCat-VIAF identifiers
 * Articles with GND identifiers
 * Articles with J9U identifiers
 * Articles with LCCN identifiers
 * This page was last edited on 1 February 2023, at 12:33 (UTC) .
 * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
 * Privacy policy
 * About Wikipedia
 * Disclaimers
 * Contact Wikipedia
 * Mobile view
 * Developers
 * Statistics
 * Cookie statement
 * 
 * 
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
 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 to address violations of Fourth Amendment rights. 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.
 The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in  Weeks v. United States  (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree." The exception is if it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.
 The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced that it was officially part of the Constitution.
 Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to state or local governments, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The amendment was held to apply to state and local governments in  Mapp v. Ohio  (1961) via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Text[edit]
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [a]  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.  [2]   
      The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to show just the text that would later be ratified as the Fourth Amendment  
Background[edit]
English law[edit]
     
Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its origin in English legal doctrine. In  Semayne's case  (1604), Sir Edward Coke famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose." [3]  Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings, but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained. [4] 
 The 1760s saw a growth in the intensity of litigation against state officers, who using general warrants, conducted raids in search of materials relating to John Wilkes's publications. The most famous of these cases involved John Entick whose home was forcibly entered by the King's Messenger Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax authorizing them "to make strict and diligent search for ... the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers entitled, 'The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 257, 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380'", the search resulting in seizure of printed charts, pamphlets and other materials. Entick filed suit in  Entick v Carrington , argued before the Court of King's Bench in 1765. Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden ruled that both the search and the seizure were unlawful, as the warrant authorized the seizure of all of Entick's papers—not just the criminal ones—and as the warrant lacked probable cause to even justify the search. By holding that "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave", [5]  Entick established the English precedent that the executive is limited in intruding on private property by common law. [4] 
Colonial America[edit]
Homes in Colonial America, on the other hand, did not enjoy the same sanctity as their British counterparts, because legislation had been explicitly written so as to enable enforcement of British revenue-gathering policies on customs; until 1750, in fact, the only type of warrant defined in the handbooks for justices of the peace was the general warrant. [4]  During what scholar William Cuddihy called the "colonial epidemic of general searches", the authorities possessed almost unlimited power to search for anything at any time, with very little oversight. [6] 
      Massachusetts lawyer James Otis protested British use of general warrants in the American colonies.  
In 1756, the colony of Massachusetts barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs. [7]  The act also permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing tax collectors to search the homes of colonists and seize "prohibited and uncustomed" goods. [8] 
A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27, 1760, when the news of King George II's death on October 23 arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King, and would have had to be re-issued by George III, the new king, to remain valid. [9] 
 In mid-January 1761, a group of more than fifty merchants represented by James Otis petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five-hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced British colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance. [10]  However, the court ruled against Otis. [11]  Future President John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events as "the spark in which originated the American Revolution". [12] 
 Because of the name he had made for himself in attacking the writs, Otis was elected to the Massachusetts colonial legislature and helped pass legislation requiring that special writs of assistance be "granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs" and barring all other writs. The governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to English law and parliamentary sovereignty. [13] 
 Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became a precedent for the Fourth Amendment: [14] 
 That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted. [14]   
Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, written by John Adams and enacted in 1780 as part of the Massachusetts Constitution, added the requirement that all searches must be "reasonable", and served as another basis for the language of the Fourth Amendment: [15] 
 Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws. [16]   
By 1784, eight state constitutions contained a provision against general warrants. [17] 
Proposal and ratification[edit]
After several years of comparatively weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring a stronger chief executive and other changes. George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing civil liberties be included. Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter James Madison—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked implying that other, unnamed rights were unprotected. After a brief debate, Mason's proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations. [18] 
 For the Constitution to be ratified, nine of the thirteen states were required to approve it in state conventions. Opposition to ratification ("Anti-Federalism") was partly based on the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Supporters of the Constitution in states where popular sentiment was against ratification (including Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York) successfully proposed that their state conventions both ratify the Constitution and call for the addition of a bill of rights. [19]  Four state conventions proposed some form of restriction on the authority of the new federal government to conduct searches. [17] 
     
In the 1st United States Congress, following the state legislatures' request, James Madison proposed twenty constitutional amendments based on state bills of rights and English sources such as the Bill of Rights 1689, including an amendment requiring probable cause for government searches. Congress reduced Madison's proposed twenty amendments to twelve, with modifications to Madison's language about searches and seizures. [20]   [21]  The final language was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789. [22] 
 By the time the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, opinions had shifted in both parties. Many Federalists, who had previously opposed a Bill of Rights, now supported the Bill as a means of silencing the Anti-Federalists' most effective criticism. Many Anti-Federalists, in contrast, now opposed it, realizing the Bill's adoption would greatly lessen the chances of a second constitutional convention, which they desired. [23]  Anti-Federalists such as Richard Henry Lee also argued that the Bill left the most objectionable portions of the Constitution, such as the federal judiciary and direct taxation, intact. [24] 
 On November 20, 1789, New Jersey ratified eleven of the twelve amendments, including the Fourth. On December 19, 1789, December 22, 1789, and January 19, 1790, respectively, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina ratified all twelve amendments. [25]  On January 25 and 28, 1790, respectively, New Hampshire and Delaware ratified eleven of the Bill's twelve amendments, including the Fourth. [25]  This brought the total of ratifying states to six of the required ten, but the process stalled in other states: Connecticut and Georgia found a Bill of Rights unnecessary and so refused to ratify, while Massachusetts ratified most of the amendments, but failed to send official notice to the Secretary of State that it had done so (all three states would later ratify the Bill of Rights for sesquicentennial celebrations in 1939). [24] 
 In February through June 1790, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island each ratified eleven of the amendments, including the Fourth. Virginia initially postponed its debate, but after Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791, the total number of states needed for ratification rose to eleven. Vermont ratified on November 3, 1791, approving all twelve amendments, and Virginia finally followed on December 15, 1791. [24]  Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792. [26] 
Applicability[edit]
The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. [27]  The Bill of Rights originally restricted only the federal government, and went through a long initial phase of "judicial dormancy;" [28]  in the words of historian Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution." [29]  Federal jurisdiction regarding criminal law was narrow until the late 19th century when the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act were passed. As federal criminal jurisdiction expanded to include other areas such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the U.S. Supreme Court. [30]  The Supreme Court responded to these questions by stating on the one hand that the government powers to search and seizure are limited by the Fourth Amendment so that arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals are prevented [31]  and by outlining on the other hand the fundamental purpose of the amendment as guaranteeing "the privacy, dignity and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government, without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function". [32]  To protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State is the overriding function of the Fourth Amendment according to the Court in  Schmerber v. California  (1966), [33]  because "[t]he security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police" is "at the core of the Fourth Amendment" and "basic to a free society." [34]  Pointing to historic precedents like  Entick v Carrington  (1765) and  Boyd v. United States  (1886), the Supreme Court held in  Silverman v. United States  (1961) that the Fourth Amendments core is the right to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. [27]  With a view to  Camara v. Municipal Court  (1967) [35]  the Supreme Court observed in  Torres v. Madrid  (2021) that the focus of the Fourth Amendment is the privacy and security of individuals, not the particular manner of arbitrary invasion by governmental officials. [36]  In  Mapp v. Ohio  (1961), [37]  the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [38] 
The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.
 --Justice William R. Day in the Opinion of the Court in  Weeks v. United States  (1914). [39]  
Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure;" what constitutes probable cause for these actions; how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. [40] 
 "The Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine involves a complex compromise between public safety and the constitutional right to personal liberty." [41]   : 1669   The Fourth Amendment typically requires "a neutral and detached authority interposed between the police and the public", and it is offended by "general warrants" and laws that allow searches to be conducted "indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with [a] crime under investigation", [42]  for the "basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of 'unreasonable' searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." [43] 
 The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that a search or an arrest generally requires a judicially sanctioned warrant, because the basic rule under the Fourth Amendment is that arrests and "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable". [44]  In order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable, it must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court. The Supreme Court further held in  Chandler v. Miller  (1997): "To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on 'special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement'. ... When such 'special needs' are alleged, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties." [45]  The amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government. [46]  In  Ontario v. Quon  (2010), the Court applied the amendment to a municipal government in its capacity as an employer, ruling that the City of Ontario had not violated the Fourth Amendment rights of city police officers by obtaining from the communications company and reviewing transcripts of text messages sent using government-provided pagers. [32]   [47] 
Search[edit]
     
One threshold question in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, has occurred. Early 20th-century Court decisions, such as  Olmstead v. United States  (1928), held that Fourth Amendment rights applied in cases of physical intrusion, but not to other forms of police surveillance (e.g., wiretaps). [48]  In  Silverman v. United States  (1961), the Court stated of the amendment that "at the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion". [49] 
 Fourth Amendment protections expanded significantly with  Katz v. United States  (1967). [48]   [50]  In Katz, the Supreme Court expanded that focus to embrace an individual's right to privacy, and ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth using a microphone attached to the outside of the glass. While there was no physical intrusion into the booth, the Court reasoned that: 1) Katz, by entering the booth and shutting the door behind him, had exhibited his expectation that "the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world"; and 2) society believes that his expectation was reasonable. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the majority opinion that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places". [51]  A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy". [52]  Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy thus provided the basis to rule that the government's intrusion, though electronic rather than physical, was a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, and thus necessitated a warrant. [48]   [53]  The Court said it was not recognizing any general right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment, [54]  and that this wiretap could have been authorized if proper procedures had been followed. [53] 
 This decision in Katz was later developed into the now commonly used two-prong test, adopted in  Smith v. Maryland  (1979), [55]  for determining whether a search has occurred for purposes of the Fourth Amendment: [56]   [57] 
 a person "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy"; and
society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable. 
The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily shared with third parties. [58]   [59]  In Smith, the Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number. [55]   [60]  However, under  Carpenter v. United States  (2018), individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding cell phone records even though they themselves turned over that information to "third parties" (i.e. the cell phone companies). Prior to the Carpenter ruling, law enforcement was able to retrieve cell site location information (CSLI) that included where a cell phone user had traveled over many months and with which other cell phone users they had associated. Carpenter v. United States serves as a landmark case because it slightly narrowed the Third Party Doctrine, thus requiring law enforcement to first obtain a search warrant before receiving CSLI records. [61]  "In the 5-4 [Carpenter] decision, the Court ruled 'narrowly' in favor of privacy, finding the government had constitutionally violated Mr. Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy by acquiring this private information without a warrant."
 Following Katz, the vast majority of Fourth Amendment search cases have turned on the right to privacy, but in  United States v. Jones  (2012), the Court ruled that the Katz standard did not replace earlier case law, but rather, has supplemented it. [62]  In Jones, law enforcement officers had attached a GPS device on a car's exterior without Jones' knowledge or consent. The Court concluded that Jones was a bailee to the car, and so had a property interest in the car. [63]  Therefore, since the intrusion on the vehicle—a common law trespass—was for the purpose of obtaining information, the Court ruled that it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court used similar "trespass" reasoning in  Florida v. Jardines  (2013), to rule that bringing a drug detection dog to sniff at the front door of a home was a search. [64] 
 In certain situations, law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest. Under  Terry v. Ohio  (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads the officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a pat-down search ("frisk" the person) to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. [65]  This detention and search is known as a  Terry stop. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. [66]  As established in  Florida v. Royer  (1983), such a search must be temporary, and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as contraband). [67]   [68] 
Seizure[edit]
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property," [69]  such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence, or when they participate in an eviction. [70]  The amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of persons, including a brief detention. [71] 
 A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained. [67]   [72]  The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds. [71] 
 In  United States v. Mendenhall  (1980), the Court held that a person is seized only when, by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained and, in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave. [71]  Under  Torres v. Madrid  (2021), a person is considered to be seized following the use of physical force with the intent to restrain, even if the person manages to escape. In  Florida v. Bostick  (1991), the Court ruled that as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the police contact is a "citizen encounter" that falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. [73]  If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no seizure and therefore no intrusion upon the person's privacy under the Fourth Amendment. [71] 
 When a person is arrested and taken into police custody, he has been seized (i.e., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine traffic stop on the other hand, has been seized, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a  Terry stop than to a formal arrest. [74]  If a person is not under suspicion of illegal behavior, a law enforcement official is not allowed to place an individual under arrest simply because this person does not wish to state his identity, provided specific state regulations do not specify this to be the case. [75]  A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, so long as the arresting officer has probable cause. [76]   [77]  In  Maryland v. King  (2013), the Court upheld the constitutionality of police swabbing for DNA upon arrests for serious crimes, along the same reasoning that allows police to take fingerprints or photographs of those they arrest and detain. [78]   [79] 
Exceptions[edit]
The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions. In  Delaware v. Prouse  (1979), the Court ruled an officer has made an illegal seizure when he stops an automobile and detains the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile, because the officer does not have articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law. [80]   [81] 
 Where society's need is great, no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, certain discretionless checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In  United States v. Martinez-Fuerte  (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. [82]  In  Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz  (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. [83]  In  Illinois v. Lidster  (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. [84]  However, in  City of Indianapolis v. Edmond  (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed. [85] 
Warrant[edit]
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, to lawfully search and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a writ known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional if conducted without a valid warrant [86]  and the police must obtain a warrant whenever practicable. [87]  Searches and seizures without a warrant are not considered unreasonable if one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. [48]   [88]   [89]  These exceptions apply "[o]nly in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." [90] 
 In these situations where the warrant requirement doesn't apply a search or seizure nonetheless must be justified by some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. [91]  However, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception to the requirement of individualized suspicion. It ruled that, "In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion" a search [or seizure] would still be reasonable. [92] 
Probable cause[edit]
The standards of probable cause [93]  differ for an arrest and a search. The government has probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime. [94]  Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest. [95] 
 When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establish probable cause to believe the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In  Carroll v. United States  (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. [96]   [97]  To that end, the Court ruled in  Dumbra v. United States  (1925) that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation," [98]  reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. [99]  It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, non-technical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. [100]  In  Illinois v. Gates  (1983), the Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "totality of the circumstances." [101] 
Exceptions to the warrant requirement[edit]
Consent[edit]
If a party gives consent to a search, a warrant is not required. There are exceptions and complications to the rule, including the scope of the consent given, whether the consent is voluntarily given, and whether an individual has the right to consent to a search of another's property. [102]  In  Schneckloth v. Bustamonte  (1973), the Court ruled that a consent search is still valid even if the police do not inform a suspect of his right to refuse the search. [103]  This contrasts with Fifth Amendment rights, which cannot be relinquished without an explicit  Miranda warning from police. [104] 
 The Court stated in  United States v. Matlock  (1974) that a third party co-occupant could give consent for a search without violating a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights. [105]   [106]  However, in  Georgia v. Randolph  (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that when two co-occupants are both present, one consenting and the other rejecting the search of a shared residence, the police may not make a search of that residence within the consent exception to the warrant requirement. [107]  Per the Court's ruling in  Illinois v. Rodriguez  (1990), [108]  a consent search is still considered valid if police accept in good faith the consent of an "apparent authority," even if that party is later discovered to not have authority over the property in question. [106]  A telling case on this subject is Stoner v. California, in which the Court held that police officers could not rely in good faith upon the apparent authority of a hotel clerk to consent to the search of a guest's room. [109] 
Plain view and open fields[edit]
According to the plain view doctrine as defined in  Coolidge v. New Hampshire  (1971), [110]  if an officer is lawfully present, he may seize objects that are in "plain view." However, the officer must have had probable cause to believe the objects are contraband. [111]  What's more, the criminality of the object in plain view must be obvious by its very nature. In  Arizona v. Hicks , the Supreme Court held that an officer stepped beyond the plain view doctrine when he moved a turntable in order to view its serial number to confirm that the turntable was stolen. [112]  "A search is a search," proclaimed the Court, "even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." [113] 
 Similarly, "open fields" such as pastures, open water, and woods may be searched without a warrant, on the ground that conduct occurring therein would have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The doctrine was first articulated by the Court in  Hester v. United States  (1924), which stated that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' is not extended to the open fields." [114] 
 In  Oliver v. United States  (1984), [115]  the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign and a fence, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path for hundreds of feet, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place, because there was no privacy expectation regarding an open field:
 open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. [116]   
While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person's home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment. The curtilage is "intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically", and is where "privacy expectations are most heightened." [117]  However, courts have held aerial surveillance of curtilage not to be included in the protections from unwarranted search so long as the airspace above the curtilage is generally accessible by the public. An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." [118]  Courts make this determination by examining "whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by." [119]  The Court has acknowledged that a doorbell or knocker is typically treated as an invitation, or license, to the public to approach the front door of the home to deliver mail, sell goods, solicit for charities, etc. This license extends to the police, who have the right to try engaging a home's occupant in a "knock and talk" for the purpose of gathering evidence without a warrant. However, they cannot bring a drug detection dog to sniff at the front door of a home without either a warrant or consent of the homeowner or resident. [120] 
Exigent circumstance[edit]
Law enforcement officers may also conduct warrantless searches in several types of exigent circumstances where obtaining a warrant is dangerous or impractical. Under  Terry v. Ohio  (1968) police are permitted to frisk suspects for weapons. [121]  The Court also allowed a search of arrested persons in Weeks v. United States (1914) to preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed and to ensure suspects were disarmed. [121]   [122]  In Carroll v. United States (1925), [96]  the Court ruled that law enforcement officers could search a vehicle that they suspected of carrying contraband without a warrant. [121]  The Court allowed blood to be drawn without a warrant from drunk-driving suspects in  Schmerber v. California  (1966) on the grounds that the time to obtain a warrant would allow a suspect's blood alcohol content to reduce, [121]   [123]  although this was later modified by  Missouri v. McNeely  (2013). [124]   Warden v. Hayden  (1967) provided an exception to the warrant requirement if officers were in "hot pursuit" of a suspect. [121]   [125] 
 A subset of exigent circumstances is the debated community caretaking exception. [126]   [127] 
Motor vehicle[edit]
The Supreme Court has held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because (1) vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects, and (2) vehicles "can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." [128]  Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in plain view may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause to believe evidence is present, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. However, they may not extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers or consent from the passengers. [129]  In  Collins v. Virginia  (2018), [130]  the Court ruled that the motor vehicle exception did not apply to searches of vehicles parked within a residence's curtilage. [131] 
 In  Arizona v. Gant  (2009), [132]  the Court ruled that a law enforcement officer needs a warrant before searching a motor vehicle after an arrest of an occupant of that vehicle, unless 1) at the time of the search the person being arrested is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle or 2) police officers have reason to believe evidence for the crime for which the person is being arrested will be found in the vehicle. [133] 
Searches incident to a lawful arrest[edit]
A common law rule from Great Britain permits searches incident to an arrest without a warrant. This rule has been applied in American law, and has a lengthy common law history. [134]  The justification for such a search is to prevent the arrested individual 1.) from destroying evidence or 2.) using a weapon against the arresting officer by disarming the suspect. [135]  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply" when "there is no possibility" the suspect could gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence. [136]  In  Trupiano v. United States  (1948), the Supreme Court held that "a search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest." [137]  In  United States v. Rabinowitz  (1950), the Court reversed Trupiano, holding instead that the officers' opportunity to obtain a warrant was not germane to the reasonableness of a search incident to an arrest. Rabinowitz suggested that any area within the "immediate control" of the arrestee could be searched, but it did not define the term. [138]  In deciding  Chimel v. California  (1969), the Supreme Court elucidated its previous decisions. It held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the officer to search the arrestee for weapons and evidence. [139]  However, in  Riley v. California  (2014), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrestee's cellular phone. [140]  The Court said that earlier Supreme Court decisions permitting searches incident to an arrest without a warrant do not apply to "modern cellphones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy," and noted that U.S. citizens' cellphones today typically contain "a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane to the intimate." [141]   [142] 
Border search exception[edit]
Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the border search exception. [143]   [144]   [145]   [146]  Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion". [145]   [147]  The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion. [145]   [148]   [149] 
Foreign intelligence surveillance[edit]
The Supreme Court decision in  United States v. U.S. District Court  (1972) [150]  left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause. [151]  Three United States Courts of Appeals have recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause, but tied it to certain requirements. [151]  The exception to the Fourth Amendment was formally recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in its 2008  In re Directives   [152]  decision. [153]  The lower court held that "a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." [153] 
 Despite the foregoing citation the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures nonetheless apply to the contents of all communications, whatever the means, because, "a person's private communications are akin to personal papers." [154]  Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the point at which the United States government's interest advanced by a particular search or seizure outweighs the loss of individual privacy or freedom of movement that attends the government's action. [155]  The United Supreme Court said in  Board of Education v. Earls  (2002) [156]  when 'special needs', beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable the reasonableness of a search is determined by balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. [155]  Additionally in  Illinois v. Lidster  (2004) [157]  the Court explained in judging reasonableness it looks to "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty". [155]  To protect the telecommunication carriers cooperating with the U.S. government from legal action, the Congress passed a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to permit this type of surveillance. [158] 
Schools and prisons[edit]
In  New Jersey v. T. L. O.  (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that searches in public schools do not require warrants, as long as the searching officers have reasonable grounds for believing the search will result in finding evidence of illegal activity. [89]  Similarly, in  Samson v. California  (2006), the Court ruled that government offices may be searched for evidence of work-related misconduct by government employees on similar grounds. [159]  Searches of prison cells are subject to no restraints relating to reasonableness or probable cause. [160]  However, in  Safford Unified School District v. Redding  (2009), [161]  the Court ruled that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when they strip searched a student based only on another student's claiming to have received drugs from her. [162] 
Exclusionary rule[edit]
One way courts enforce the Fourth Amendment is through the use of the exclusionary rule. The rule provides that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally not admissible by the prosecution during the defendant's criminal trial. [163]  The Court stated in  Elkins v. United States  (1960) [164]  that the rule's function "is to deter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it." [163] 
 The Court adopted the exclusionary rule in  Weeks v. United States  (1914), [122]  prior to which all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court. [165]  In  Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States  (1920) [166]  and  Nardone v. United States  (1939), [167]  the Court ruled that leads or other evidence resulting from illegally obtained evidence are also inadmissible in trials. Justice Felix Frankfurter described this secondary evidence in the Nardone decision as the "fruit of the poisonous tree". [168]  The Supreme Court rejected incorporating the exclusionary rule by way of the Fourteenth Amendment in  Wolf v. Colorado  (1949), [169]  but Wolf was explicitly overruled in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), [37]  making the Fourth Amendment (including the exclusionary rule) applicable in state proceedings. [170] 
 The exclusionary rule and its effectiveness have often been controversial, particularly since its 1961 application to state proceedings. Critics charge that the rule hampers police investigation and can result in freeing guilty parties convicted on reliable evidence; other critics say the rule has not been successful in deterring illegal police searches. Proponents argue that the number of criminal convictions overturned under the rule has been minimal and that no other effective mechanism exists to enforce the Fourth Amendment. [163]  In 1982, California passed a "Victim's Bill of Rights" containing a provision to repeal the exclusionary rule; though the bill could not affect federally mandated rights under the Fourth Amendment, it blocked the state courts from expanding these protections further. [171]   [172] 
Limitations[edit]
Since 1974, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the exclusionary rule. [163]  In  United States v. Calandra  (1974), [173]  the Court ruled that grand juries may use illegally obtained evidence when questioning witnesses, because "the damage to that institution from the unprecedented extension of the exclusionary rule outweighs the benefit of any possible incremental deterrent effect." [174]  Explaining the purpose of the rule, the Court said the rule "is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved." [175] 
 Three cases in 1984 further restricted the exclusionary rule:
 In  United States v. Leon  (1984), [176]  the Court established the "good faith" exception to the rule, ruling that evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant was still admissible, even though the warrant was later found to be defective, unless an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepared an affidavit to seek a warrant, the issuing magistrate abandoned his neutrality, or the warrant lacked sufficient particularity. [177]  
The Court determined in  Nix v. Williams  (1984) [178]  that "fruit of the poisonous tree" evidence could still be introduced if a prosecutor could demonstrate that it would have been an "inevitable discovery" of legitimate investigation. [179]  
In  Segura v. United States  (1984), [180]  the Court ruled that evidence illegally found without a search warrant is admissible if the evidence is later found and legally seized based on information independent of the illegal search. [181]   
In  Arizona v. Evans  (1995) [182]  and  Herring v. United States  (2009), [183]  the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence found due to negligence regarding a government database, as long as the arresting police officer relied on that database in "good faith" and the negligence was not pervasive. [184]   [185]  In  Davis v. United States  (2011), [186]  the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to a Fourth Amendment violation resulting from a reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent. [187]  In  Utah v. Strieff  (2016), [188]  the Court ruled that evidence obtained from an unlawful police stop would not be excluded from court when the link between the stop and the evidence's discovery was "attenuated" by the discovery of an outstanding warrant during the stop. [189] 
 The Supreme Court has also held the exclusionary rule to not apply in the following circumstances:
 evidence illegally seized by a "private actor" (i.e., not a governmental employee) [190]  
tax hearings [191]  
evidence collected by U.S. Customs agents [192]  
deportation hearings [193]  
evidence seized by probation or parole officers [194]  
probation or parole revocation hearings [195]   
Metadata[edit]
On December 16, 2013, in  Klayman v. Obama , a United States district court ruled that the mass collection of metadata of Americans' telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the Fourth Amendment. [196]   [197]   [198]   [199]   [200]   [201]   [202]  The court granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs [203]  and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. The court stayed the ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing the "significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues." [202] 
 However, in  ACLU v. Clapper , a United States district court ruled that the U.S. government's global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can work only if everyone's calls are included. [204]  The court also ruled that Congress legally set up the program and it does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. The court concluded that the telephone data being swept up by NSA did not belong to telephone users, but to the telephone companies. Also, the court held that when NSA obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not even a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that the controlling precedent is  Smith v. Maryland , saying "Smith's bedrock holding is that an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties." [205]   [206]   [207]   [208]  The American Civil Liberties Union declared on January 2, 2014, that it will appeal the ruling that NSA bulk phone record collection is legal. "The government has a legitimate interest in tracking the associations of suspected terrorists, but tracking those associations does not require the government to subject every citizen to permanent surveillance," deputy ACLU legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. [209] 
See also[edit]
  Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 
 Fourth Amendment Protection Act 
 NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)#Fourth Amendment issues 
 Parallel construction 
 Privacy laws of the United States 
 Special needs exception 
 Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 
  subpoena ad testificandum  
  subpoena duces tecum   
Notes[edit]
 
  ^  Effects are items of property. [1] 
 
 Citations
  ^  Denniston, Lyle (April 25, 2014). "Argument preview: Police and cellphone privacy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  ^   "Bill of Rights Transcript Text". October 30, 2015.
  ^  Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
^    a       b       c    Kilman &amp; Costello (2006), p. 1281–1282.
  ^   Entick v Carrington , 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291; 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817 (K. B. 1765)
  ^  Levy (1995), p. 150.
  ^  Fuqua, David (Fall 2014). "Technology and the Fourth Amendment: History and Application of Principles of Decision in Light of New Means of Surveillance". FDCC Quarterly. 64: 2–25.
  ^  Davies (1999).
  ^  Wroth &amp; Zobel (1965), p. 113, fn 22: "The writs of assistance did not become an issue until news of King George II's death arrived in Boston December 27, 1760."
  ^  Wroth &amp; Zobel (1965), p. 113, fn 23.
  ^  Lasson (1937), p. 57–61.
  ^  Adams &amp; Adams (1856), p. 59.
  ^  Lasson (1937), p. 66.
^    a       b    Levy (1995), p. 161.
  ^  Roots, Roger (January 13, 2010). "The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule" (PDF). Gonzaga Law Review. p. 20 (fn. 118). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 15, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2012.
  ^   "Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts".
^    a       b    Cuddihy, William (1986). "Fourth Amendment, Historical Origins of". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 27, 2013.
  ^  Beeman (2009), p. 341–43.
  ^  Maier (2010), p. 431.
  ^  "Amendment IV," The Founders Constitution, University of Chicago Press.
  ^  Gordon, John D. (III). "Egbert Benson: A Nationalist in Congress", in Neither Separate Nor Equal: Congress in the 1790s, pp. 69-73 (edited by Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon of the United States Capitol Historical Society, published by Ohio University Press in 2000).
  ^   "Bill of Rights". National Archives. Archived from the original on April 4, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2013.
  ^  Wood (2009), p. 71.
^    a       b       c    Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Bill of Rights (United States)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 16, 2013.
^    a       b    Labunski (2006), p. 245.
  ^  Labunski (2006), p. 255.
^    a       b     "Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), at 511". Justia US Supreme Court Center. March 6, 1961. Retrieved January 26, 2021.
  ^  Labunski (2006), p. 258–59.
  ^  Wood (2009), p. 72.
  ^  Lasson (1937), p. 106.
  ^   "United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), at 427". Justia US Supreme Court Center. July 6, 1976. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
^    a       b     Ontario v. Quon , 130 S.Ct. 2619, No. 08-1332, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).
  ^   "Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), at 767". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 20, 1966. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  ^   "Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), at 27". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 27, 1949. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  ^   "Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), at 528". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 5, 1967. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
  ^   "Roxanne Torres v. Janice Madrid, et al., Opinion of the Court, Slip Opinion page 9" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. March 25, 2021. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 5, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
^    a       b     Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Mapp v. Ohio". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
  ^   "Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), at 391-392". Justia US Supreme Court Center. February 24, 1914. Retrieved January 18, 2021.
  ^  Arenella, Peter (1992). "Fourth Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
  ^  Pedro, Portia (April 1, 2008). "Recent Case, Ninth Circuit Considers Community's Racial Tension with Police in Finding Illegal Seizure and Lack of Voluntary Consent. — United States V. Washington, 490 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2007)". Harvard Law Review. 121 (6): 1669.
  ^   Berger v. New York , 388 U.S. 41, 54,59 (1967).
  ^   Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco , 387 U.S. 523 (1967).
  ^   Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 (2009), at page 338.
  ^   Chandler v. Miller , 520 U.S. 305 (1997).
  ^   United States v. Jacobsen , 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (punctuation omitted).
  ^   "City of Ontario v. Quon". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
^    a       b       c       d    Schwartz, Herman (1986). "Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
  ^   Silverman v. United States , 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961).
  ^   Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
  ^  Katz, 389 U.S. at 351.
  ^  Katz, 389 U.S. at 351; at 360-61 (Harlan, J., concurring)
^    a       b    Schroeder, Steve (2012).  The Lure: The True Story of How the Department of Justice Brought Down Two of the World's Most Dangerous Cyber Criminals . Cengage Learning. p. 127. ISBN  978-1-4354-5713-3 .
  ^  Morgan, Candace. "Challenges and Issues Today" in Intellectual Freedom Manual, pp. 41–42 (American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, 2010).
^    a       b     Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
  ^  Freiwald, Susan (2007). "First Principles of Communications Privacy" (PDF). Stanford Technology Law Review (3). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 17, 2013.
  ^  Sorosky, Schuyler. "United States v. Forrester: An Unwarranted Narrowing of the Fourth Amendment," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 41, p. 1121, 1126 (2008).
  ^  Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 440-41 (1976).
  ^   "Smith v. Maryland". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved January 13, 2014. Because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily given to third parties, the telephone numbers that are regularly and voluntarily provided to telephone companies by their customers do not gain Fourth Amendment protections. 
  ^  Smith, 442 U.S. at 742.
  ^  Howe, Amy (June 22, 2018). "Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for cellphone location information". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  ^   United States v. Jones , No. 10-1259, 565 U.S. ___ (2012).
  ^  Denniston, Lyle (January 23, 2012). "Opinion recap: Tight limit on police GPS use". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved January 23, 2012.
  ^   Florida v. Jardines , No. 11-564, 569 U.S. ___ (2013).
  ^   Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Sibron v. New York 392 U.S. 40 (1968)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
^    a       b     Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491, 497–98 (1983).
  ^   "Florida v. Royer". casebriefs.com. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
  ^  Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113.
  ^   Soldal v. Cook County , 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992). "The right against unreasonable seizures would be no less transgressed if the seizure of the house was undertaken to collect evidence, verify compliance with a housing regulation, effect an eviction by the police, or on a whim, for no reason at all."
^    a       b       c       d     United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 (1980).
  ^   Dunaway v. New York , 442 U.S. 200, 210 n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2255 n. 12, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979).
  ^   Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 439 (1991).
  ^   Knowles v. Iowa , 525 U.S. 113, 117 (1998).
  ^  Moritz, Rob (April 5, 2008). "Fed appeals court says refusal to identify no cause for arrest". Arkansas News Bureau. Archived from the original on June 13, 2008. Retrieved April 6, 2012.
  ^   Virginia v. Moore , No. 06-1082, 553 U.S. 164 (2008).
  ^   "Court allows search and seizure in Va. case".  USA Today . April 23, 2008. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
  ^   Maryland v. King , No. 12-207, 569 U.S. ___ (2013).
  ^  June, Daniel. (June 3, 2013)"Supreme Court Approves Use of DNA Swabbing in Serious Arrests". JDJournal. Accessed August 2, 2013.
  ^   Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Automobile search". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
  ^   United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
  ^   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).
  ^   Maryland v. Dyson , 527 U.S. 465 (1999).
  ^   Andrews v. Fuoss , 417 F.3d 813, 819 (8th Cir. 2005).
  ^  Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 (1999);  California v. Acevedo , 500 U.S. 565 (1991).
^    a       b     New Jersey v. T. L. O. ,  469 U.S. 325 (1985). "[W]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically delineated and well-recognized exceptions. ... full-scale searches—whether conducted in accordance with the warrant requirement or pursuant to one of its exceptions—are 'reasonable' in Fourth Amendment terms only on a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime will be found in the place to be searched."
  ^  T. L. O., 469 U.S., Blackmun, J., concurring.
  ^  Keeley III., Charles J. (2006). "Article 8 – Subway Searches: Which Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements Applies to Suspicionless Searches of Mass Transit Passengers To Prevent Terrorism?". Fordham Law Review. 74 (6): 3236. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  ^   Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association , 489 U.S. 602 (1989).
  ^  Senior Specialist Charles Doyle (January 30, 2006). "CSR Memorandum to the United Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled "Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Act"" (PDF). Congressional Research Service via the Federation of American Scientists. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 24, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  ^   Beck v. Ohio , 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964).
  ^   Johnson v. United States , 333 U.S. 10 (1948).
^    a       b     Carroll v. United States , 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Carroll v. United States 267 U.S. 132 (1925)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
  ^   Dumbra v. United States , 268 U.S. 435 (1925).
  ^  Carroll, 267 U.S. at 162.
  ^   Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983).
  ^   Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
  ^  Holcomb, J. W. (March 2003).Obtaining Written Consent to Search. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
  ^   Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 412 U.S. 218 (1973)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^   United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164 (1974).
^    a       b    Crawford, Kimberly A. (August 1, 1996). "Consent searches: guidelines for officers". The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. [ dead link ]
  ^  Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).
  ^   Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
  ^  Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1969).
  ^   Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Plain View Doctrine". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^  Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
  ^  480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987).
  ^   Hester v. United States , 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
  ^   Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
  ^  Oliver, 466 U.S. at 179.
  ^   California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986).
  ^   United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987).
  ^  Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301.
  ^  Jardines, 569 U. S. (slip op., at 6). "This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation's Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters."
^    a       b       c       d       e    Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Exigent Circumstances Search". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
^    a       b     Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
  ^   Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
  ^   "Missouri v. McNeely" (PDF). Supreme Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 14, 2014. Retrieved December 5, 2014.
  ^   Warden v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 (1967).
  ^   "Courts in a muddle over 4th Amendment's community caretaking exception". ABA Journal. David L. Hudson. Retrieved September 29, 2018. {{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  ^   "The Community Caretaker Function Exception to the Warrant Requirement | Virginia Police Legal Bulletin | Radford University". www.radford.edu. Archived from the original on September 30, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  ^  Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925)
  ^  Hendrie, Edward (August 1, 2005). "The motor vehicle exception". The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. [ dead link ]
  ^   Collins v. Virginia , No. 16-1027, ___ U.S. ___ (2018)
  ^  Howe, Amy (May 29, 2018). "Opinion analysis: Justices decline to extend Fourth Amendment's "automobile exception"". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  ^   Arizona v. Gant , No. 07-542, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
  ^  Moore, Kristina (April 21, 2009). "Limits on warrantless car searches, compensation to terrorism victims, veterans benefit disputes". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
  ^  Kerr, Orin (December 14, 2010) The Origins of the "Search Incident to Arrest" Exception,  The Volokh Conspiracy 
  ^   "Riley v. California – Concerning the Constitutionality of a Warrantless Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  ^   Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009).
  ^   Trupiano v. United States , 334 U.S. 699 (1948).
  ^   United States v. Rabinowitz , 339 U.S. 56 (1950).
  ^   Chimel v. California , 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
  ^   Riley v. California  No. 13-132, 573 U.S. ___ (2014).
  ^  Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2014). "Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones". The New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2014.
  ^  Charlie Savage, Hannah Fairfield and Josh Williams (June 25, 2014). "Between the Lines of the Cellphone Privacy Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2014.
  ^   Henderson v. United States (1967) , 390 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1967).
  ^   United States v. Guadalupe-Garza , 421 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1970).
^    a       b       c    Upright, Scott J. (October 1, 2009). "Suspicionless border seizures of electronic files: the overextension of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment". William and Mary Law Review. 51 (1): 291. [ dead link ]
  ^   United States v. Flores-Montano , 541 U.S. 149 (2004),  United States v. Montoya De Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531 (1985), and  United States v. Ramsey , 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
  ^  Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152–53.
  ^   United States v. Ickes , 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005).
  ^    United States v. Arnold  , 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008).
  ^   United States v. U.S. District Court , 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
^    a       b    Vladeck, Steve (May 23, 2013). "More on Clapper and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Exception". Lawfare Blog – Hard National Security Choices. Archived from the original on July 16, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2013.
  ^   Selya, Bruce M. (August 22, 2008). "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF). U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 3, 2019. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
^    a       b    Vladeck, Steve (May 22, 2013). "Why Clapper Matters: The Future of Programmatic Surveillance". Lawfare Blog – Hard National Security Choices. Retrieved July 17, 2013.
  ^  John D Bates (October 3, 2011). "[redacted]" (PDF). United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Electronic Frontier Foundation. pp. 73–74. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 11, 2019.
^    a       b       c    Senior Specialist Charles Doyle (January 30, 2006). "CSR Memorandum to the United Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled "Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Act"" (PDF). Congressional Research Service via the Federation of American Scientists. pp. 1 and 6–8. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  ^   Board of Education v. Earls , 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
  ^   Illinois v. Lidster , 540 U.S. 419 (2004)
  ^  Ferraro, Thomas (July 9, 2008). "Bush wins passage of US spy bill to protect telecoms". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  ^   Samson v. California , 547 U.S. 843 (2006).
  ^  Goring, Darlene C. (1984). "Fourth Amendment—Prison Cells: Is there a Right to Privacy". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 75 (3): 609–629. doi:10.2307/1143635. JSTOR 1143635. Retrieved September 19, 2013.
  ^   Safford Unified School District v. Redding , No. 08-479, 557 U.S. ___ (2009).
  ^  Denniston, Lyle (June 25, 2009). "Analysis: Some expansion of student privacy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 25, 2009.
^    a       b       c       d    Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Exclusionary Rule". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on November 11, 2013. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^   Elkins v. United States , 364 U.S. 206 (1960).
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^   Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
  ^   Nardone v. United States , 308 U.S. 338 (1939).
  ^  Landynski, Jacob W. (1986). "Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States 251 U.S. 385 (1920)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^   Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
  ^   "Mapp v. Ohio". Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). 2001. Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^   "California's Backfire on Crime". The New York Times. June 21, 1982. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^  Crisera (1990), p. 1587.
  ^   United States v. Calandra , 414 U.S. 338 (1974).
  ^  Calandra, 414 U.S. at 354.
  ^  Calandra, 414 U.S. at 349.
  ^   United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
  ^  Leon, 468 U.S. at 926.
  ^   Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
  ^  Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Nix v. Williams 467 U.S. 431 (1984)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Archived from the original on June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  ^   Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 (1984).
  ^  Hendrie, Edward M. (September 1, 1997). "The Inevitable Discovery Exception to the Exclusionary Rule". The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. [ dead link ]
  ^   Arizona v. Evans , 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
  ^   Herring v. United States , 555 U.S. 135 (2009).
  ^  Stinger, C. Maureen (February 13, 1996). "Arizona v. Evans: Adapting the Exclusionary Rule to Advancing Computer Technology". The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. Retrieved January 16, 2009.
  ^   "Court says evidence is valid despite police error". Retrieved January 14, 2009.
  ^   Davis v. United States , 131 S.Ct. 2419, No. 09-11328, 564 U.S. ___ (2011).
  ^  Denniston, Lyle (June 25, 2011). "Opinion analysis: The fading "exclusionary rule"". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
  ^   Utah v. Strieff , No. 14-1373, 579 U.S. ___ (2016)
  ^  Waimberg, Joshua. "The Supreme Court's Utah v. Strieff decision and the Fourth Amendment".  National Constitution Center . National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on June 23, 2016. Retrieved June 25, 2016.
  ^   Burdeau v. McDowell , 256 U.S. 465 (1921).
  ^   United States v. Janis , 428 U.S. 433 (1976).
  ^   United States v. Andreas , 463 U.S. 765 (1983).
  ^   INS v. Lopez-Mendoza , 468 U.S. 1032 (1984).
  ^   Griffin v. Wisconsin , 483 U.S. 868 (1987);  United States v. Knights , 534 U.S. 112 (2001).
  ^   Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 (1998).
  ^  Leon, Richard (December 16, 2013). "Federal judge rules NSA program is likely unconstitutional". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 30, 2017. Retrieved December 17, 2013.
  ^  Savage, Charlie (December 16, 2013). "Judge Questions Legality of N.S.A. Phone Records". The New York Times. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
  ^  Bill Mears; Evan Perez (December 17, 2013). "Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional". CNN. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
  ^  Kravets, David (December 16, 2013). "Court Says NSA Bulk Telephone Spying Is Unconstitutional". Wired. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
  ^  Kevin Johnson; Richard Wolf (December 16, 2013). "Federal judge rules against NSA spying". USA Today. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
  ^  Gerstein, Josh (December 16, 2013). "Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional". Politico. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
^    a       b    Ellen Nakashima; Ann E. Marimow (December 16, 2013). "Judge: NSA's collecting of phone records is probably unconstitutional". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2013.
  ^  Spencer Ackerman; Dan Roberts (December 16, 2013). "NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules". The Guardian. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
  ^  Pauley III, William H. (December 27, 2013). "United States District Court Southern District of New York: American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper (13 Civ. 3994) (WHP))" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  ^  Adam Liptak; Michael S. Schmidt (December 27, 2013). "Judge Upholds N.S.A.'s Bulk Collection of Data on Calls". The New York Times. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  ^  Denniston, Lyle (December 27, 2013). "Judge upholds NSA's phone data sweeps (UPDATED)". Scotusblog. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  ^  Peterson, Andrea (December 27, 2013). "The most Kafkaesque paragraph from today's NSA ruling". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  ^  Horwitz, Sari (December 27, 2013). "NSA collection of phone data is lawful, federal judge rules". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  ^  Ackermann, Spencer (January 2, 2014). "ACLU will appeal ruling that NSA bulk phone record collection is legal". The Guardian. Retrieved January 4, 2014.
 
References[edit]
  Adams, Charles Francis; Adams, John (1856). The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author. Vol. 1. Little, Brown. 
 Beeman, Richard (2009). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House. 
 Crisera, Maria Lisa (1990). "Reevaluation of the California Corpus Delicti Rule: A Response to the Invitation of Proposition 8". California Law Review. 78 (6): 1571–1597. doi:10.2307/3480804. JSTOR 3480804. 
 Davies, Thomas Y. (1999). "Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment".  Michigan Law Review . 98 (3): 547–750. doi:10.2307/1290314. JSTOR 1290314. 
 Kilman, Johnny; Costello, George, eds. (2006). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. GPO. 
 Labunski, Richard E. (2006). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press. 
 Lasson, Nelson B. (1937). The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johns Hopkins University Press. 
 Levy, Leonard Williams (1995). Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights, and History. Transaction Publishers. 
 Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. Simon and Schuster. 
 Wood, Gordon S. (2009). Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815. Oxford University Press. 
 Wroth, Kinvin; Zobel, Hiller B., eds. (1965). Legal Papers of John Adams. Vol. 2. Belknap Press. 
   Fourth Amendment Lesson Plan  (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. February 10, 2010.  
External links[edit]
 
  CRS Annotated Constitution: Fourth Amendment, Cornell University
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution