Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The reasonable expectation of privacy is crucial in distinguishing a legitimate, reasonable police search and seizure from an unreasonable one. A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the Government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy". [3] In Katz v.
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 and 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 ...
The "special needs" exception is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general requirement that government searches be supported by a warrant and probable cause. [1] The exception applies when (1) the government conducts programmatic searches that are primarily aimed at advancing some special need other than criminal law enforcement, and (2) the government’s search program is reasonable ...
Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the traditional, common-law-derived "knock and announce" rule for executing search warrants must be incorporated into the "reasonableness" analysis of whether the actual execution of the warrant is/was justified under the 4th Amendment.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the Fourth Amendment rights of government employees with regard to administrative searches in the workplace, during investigations by supervisors for violations of employee policy rather than by law enforcement for criminal offenses.
The Court held 6-3 that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure." However, upon remand to the Michigan Supreme Court, that court held that the checkpoints nonetheless violated the Michigan constitution and remain prohibited.
The Court cited policy reasons for preserving the open fields rule, stating that "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance." Id at 178.