Searches+and+Seizures+Right+to+Privacy

=Right to Privacy and Searches & Seizures= by Jon Hauser and Ani Katipally

Intro:
The right to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizure stems from the fourth amendment and its incorporation through the fourteenth amendment. This protection was put into the Bill of Rights because of how Great Britain treated the colonists. The crown was allowed to search houses without warrants and seize whatever they deemed to be illegal or necessary for the safety of the colonies.

Evolution of its Meaning:
The original meaning of the fourth amendment was to protect the physical property, such as houses and papers, from unreasonable searches by the government, therefore providing for privacy. As time progressed, the parameters of the fourth amendments meaning have grown to encompass the privacy of the person themselves, as well as providing for exceptions with warrants. Technology and the civil rights movement have been key in the evolution of the meaning.

=__4th Amendment:__=

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This text has been incorporated into the states over time with the expansion of a person's right to privacy and right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

=__Important Cases:__=

__Name:__ Wolf v. Colorado __Year:__ 1948 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ Due process, admissible evidence __Background:__ Julius A. Wolf was accused by the state of conspiring to commit criminal abortions. Wolf was found guilty in the lower courts. He appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, who granted him a writ of Certiorari. He claimed that the evidence used by the state to convict him of the crime was gathered through illegal methods, and thus couldn’t be used in a trial against him according to the Fourth Amendment. __Constitutional Question:__ Does the Fourteenth Amendment prevent states from using evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment in trial? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusion of illegal evidence was not the best solution in this case, and as such Wolf was still guilty. However, they also did incorporate the Fourth Amendment to a degree in this case, as they stated that the due process clause is implicit in the enforcement of justice and as such, the states must follow it.

__Name:__ Mapp v. Ohio __Year:__ 1961 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ Due process, admissible evidence, incorporation __Background:__ Police in Cleveland, Ohio, were given an anonymous tip on Dollree Mapp’s home, which said that they would find a bombing case and illegal gambling material inside. The police conducted a warrantless search, but brandished a random piece of paper when Mapp requested to see the warrant. They went in her home, and didn’t find any gambling material or a bombing case, but did find illegal child pornography. She was found guilty of possession of child pornography. __Constitutional Question:__ Does the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of illegally begotten evidence in court apply to the state courts? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prevents the states from using illegally found evidence in court. This was significant as this incorporated the Fourth Amendment, which meant for the first time, states had to implicitly follow this section of the Bill of Rights.

__Name:__ Terry v. Ohio __Year:__ 1968 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ incorporation, due process, illegal search and seizure __Background:__ A police officer from Cleveland observed two men walking suspiciously back in forth down a street and meeting up at the middle of the street and talking and repeating this behavior over and over. He had a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity and so apprehended the two men and one of their accomplices in a store. They were found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. __Constitutional Question:__ Can a police officer with reasonable suspicion search and apprehend suspects? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The Court found that it is constitutional for a police officer to conduct a pat down of a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion that they are committing a crime, and this does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

__Name:__ Dow Chemical Company v. U.S. __Year:__ 1985 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ warrant, aerial investigation __Background:__ The Dow Chemical Company denied access to EPA to one of their chemical plants, which led the EPA to conduct an aerial investigation to see what was going on. The Dow Chemical Company discovered that the EPA did this, and filed suit saying they violated the Fourth Amendment. The court ruled in favor of the Dow Chemical Company. __Constitutional Question:__ Does the government need to get a warrant to conduct an aerial investigation or is conducting a warrantless aerial investigation against the Fourth Amendment? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ No, the government does not need a warrant to conduct an aerial investigation. This case defined what the right against invasion of privacy meant, as an open field at a chemical plant is a place that cannot expect the same measure of privacy as a closed facility.

__Name:__ Roe v. Wade __Year:__ 1973 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ privacy, abortion, incorporation __Background:__ A woman trying to get an abortion was prevented from getting an abortion by the state of Texas. She sued the state of Texas with the alias Jane Roe, claiming she had the right to an abortion based on the Fourth Amendment. __Constitutional Question:__ Do women have the right to an abortion guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment affords women an unburdened right to an abortion, as long as the fetus is not yet capable of living outside the womb. This case was especially important as it incorporated the right to privacy, saying that the states had no right to regulate the private lives of people.

__Name:__ Griswold v. Connecticut __Year:__ 1965 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ contraceptives, right to privacy, incorporation __Background:__ A woman in Connecticut was arrested for selling contraceptives, which Connecticut had banned. The woman appealed the verdict, saying she that the state had no right to ban contraceptives. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as the case included a conflict with the Fourth Amendment as well as the Fourteenth. __Constitutional Question:__ Do the states have a right to ban contraceptives and does the right to privacy apply to states? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The court ruled in favor of Griswold, incorporating the right to privacy to the states. The state of Connecticut could not legally ban contraceptives, as they were a part of a woman’s privacy.

__Name:__ Katz v. U.S. __Year:__ 1967 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ wiretapping, privacy __Background:__ Police wiretapped a public payphone which Katz used to transmit illegal gambling information. They used the recordings to arrest him. Katz challenges his convictions saying the recordings were a breach of privacy. __Constitutional Question:__ Does wiretapping constitute an invasion of privacy? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The Court ruled in favor of Katz, ruling that the Fourth Amendment insured privacy and that a physical intrusion of the space a person is occupying is not all that the Fourth Amendment protects.

__Name:__ Weeks v. U.S. __Year:__ 1914 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ unreasonable search and seizure __Background:__ Police entered the home of Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him. This was done without a search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions. The case was brought before the Supreme Court. __Constitutional Question:__ Did the search of Weeks home by state police violate the Fourth Amendment? Does the Fourth Amendment apply to state police? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Weeks. His arrest was made on the basis of evidence that was clearly taken in an invasion of privacy and was an unreasonable search and seizure, considering there was no warrant. As such, the police sent by the state cannot conduct illegal searches.

__Name:__ Florida v. Harris __Year:__ 2012 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ Search and seizure, privacy, probable cause __Background:__ Police searched Harris’s car without a warrant after a drug sniffing dog gave the police a signal. Pseudoephedrine was found in the car along with hundreds of pills used to make Meth. This was used to convict Harris. Harris appealed the conviction arguing that the dog was trained to sniff out certain drugs, but not pseudoephedrine. __Constitutional Question:__ Can evidence gotten without a legal basis be used in court? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The court ruled that probable cause is a flexible term, and as long as there is some sort of reasonable doubt that there was something wrong, the police are allowed to conduct a search. 

__Name:__ Bailey v. United States __Year:__ 2013 __Government Units Involved:__ Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings, Unit 5: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ probably cause, habeas corpus __Background:__ An informant told the police that he had bought cocaine from someone at a specific address. The police went to the address with a warrant and surveilled it. A person left the house, and the police went to move in. They detained the person, and they later arrested them for cocaine possession. The person sued on the basis that they had no reason to detain them. Habeas corpus was also in question, as they would not tell the person why they were being detained. __Constitutional Question:__ Can someone who has left the immediate vicinity of a house that is being searched be detained? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ The court ruled that they could, if there was reason to believe they were involved in whatever the house was being searched for.

__Name:__ California v. Greenwood __Year:__ 1988 __Government Units Involved:__ Civil Rights and Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ Narcotics __Background:__ Greenwood was arrested for drug trafficking after cops found evidence in his trash. He said that it was infringing on his 14th Amendment rights. __Constitutional Question:__ Whether a person has a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ It set the precedent and defined te role of the 14th Amendment. Looking through someone's trash is legal and not infringing on a person's 14th Amendment rights.

__Name:__ Chimel v. California __Year:__ 1969 __Government Units Involved:__ Civil Rights and Civil Liberties __Key Vocab:__ immediate control __ Background: __ T he defendant, Chimel (the “defendant”), was arrested inside his home and police asked him for consent to search the home. The defendant refused the request. The police proceeded nonetheless, incident to the lawful arrest and searched in different rooms. The police also had the defendant’s wife open various dresser drawers and remove their contents. __Constitutional Question:__ When someone is arrested in their home, is there need for a warrant? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ Any area that belongs to that person is protected under the 4th amendment and cannot be searched without a proper search warrant. Shows what the extent of the 4th amendment is. There was another case that adjusted the ruling that was set in this case.

__Name:__ Olmstead v. United States __Year:__ 1928 __Government units Involved:__ Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. __Key Vocab:__ Prohibition __Background:__ A few men, during Prohibition were caught conspiring of liquor related crimes. They had their phones tapped and they found out and sued, claiming their 4th amendment rights had been infringed upon. __Constitutional Question:__ “Whether the use of evidence of private telephone conversations between the defendants and others, intercepted by means of wire tapping, amounted to a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? __Decision of the Court/Significance:__ It voted against it, saying that there was no searching or seizure, so what they did was completely legal. It set one of the earliest precedents for the 4th and 5th amendments. Might have played a role in ending Prohibition because of the quantity of liquor related crimes during that time period.

How These Rights are Viewed:
What are the opinions portrayed in this political cartoon? What part of the fourth amendment is each cartoon referring to?

media type="youtube" key="Oxj_6kXavrw" height="315" width="560" What is Justice Scalia's opinion on the right to privacy?

Evolution of Constitutional Liberty:
The constitution interpretation of liberty has been expanded with the 4th amendment. These cases have given increased liberty to individuals through the right of privacy and the protection from unreasonable searches. The liberty from when the Constitution was signed has grown to encompass more people in more ways than it originally did. This is because of living constitutionalism and judicial activism.

Impact of the Fourth Amendment:
The impact of cases involving the 4th amendment affects everyday life. The constitutional interpretation leading to the decisions in these cases gives people the right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure in varying degrees. These case decisions allow federal agencies, police, etc. to pursue information within certain boundaries. Due to ambiguity with probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and extent of the right of privacy, these agencies and departments often try to overstep the bounds in order to establish “justice and liberty.” This causes average people to be unaware of where their rights actually lie.

Vocab List:
Admissible Evidence - collected evidence that can be used in court Due Process - Fair treatment in the judicial system, i.e. fair trials Incorporation: The application of the Bill of Rights to the states over time through Supreme Court Decisions. Contraceptives - Things which prevent the conception of a child Warrant - Legal document allowing for search of a household, car, person, etc.

Review Questions:
1. What is incorporation? 2. Which Court case allows couples to use contraceptives? Why? 3. Which Court case increases a woman's right to privacy? Why? 4. How has the right of privacy been expanded? 5. What does a government official need to search a house?

See also:
[] [] []

WORKS CITED:
"Cases - 1960-1969 Term." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

"WOLF v. COLORADO." Wolf v. Colorado. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

"WEEKS v. UNITED STATES." Weeks v. United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

"Terry v. Ohio." Terry v. Ohio. N.p., 12 Dec. 1967. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

Roe v. Wade." Roe v. Wade. N.p., 13 Dec. 1971. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

"MAPP v. OHIO." Mapp v. Ohio. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

"DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES." Dow Chemical Co. v. United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

"American Civil Liberties Union." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.