The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. The amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. This means that law enforcement officers need a warrant, supported by probable cause, before they can search someone's property or arrest them.
Katz v. United States (1967)
In Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protected people, not just places. The case involved a man named Charles Katz, who was suspected of illegal gambling. The FBI placed a listening device on the outside of a public phone booth to eavesdrop on Katz's conversations. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated Katz's Fourth Amendment rights, as he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established the "stop and frisk" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The case involved a police officer named Martin McFadden, who observed two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, walking back and forth in front of a store. McFadden became suspicious and decided to confront the men. He patted them down and found that Terry was carrying a gun.
United States v. Jones (2012)
In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of GPS tracking by law enforcement. The case involved a man named Antoine Jones, who was suspected of drug trafficking. The FBI placed a GPS device on Jones's car without a warrant and tracked his movements for 28 days. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated Jones's Fourth Amendment rights, as it constituted a search without a warrant.
Riley v. California (2014)
In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of cell phone searches incident to arrest. The case involved a man named David Riley, who was arrested for a traffic violation. The police searched his cell phone without a warrant and found evidence linking him to gang activity. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated Riley's Fourth Amendment rights, as cell phones contain vast amounts of personal information and require a warrant to search.
Conclusion
The Fourth Amendment is a crucial protection for citizens' privacy and security. The Supreme Court has issued many important rulings on Fourth Amendment issues, including the cases discussed above. It is important for citizens to know their rights and to hold law enforcement accountable when those rights are violated.