T HE R IGHT TO B E L EFT A LONE Essential Question: How has an individual’s right to privacy changed over time?

C ONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO P RIVACY The Fourth 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.”

R IGHT TO P RIVACY L IMITS US Courts have typically argued that an officer’s duty to protect the public outweighs an individual’s right to privacy. Police officers must have a warrant from a magistrate listing a specific address/location to be searched. In order to get a search warrant, police officers must have probable cause. In order to conduct a search without a warrant, officers can have probable cause PLUS the reasonable belief that if the search is delayed while the officer obtains a warrant from the court, that the evidence in question could be removed/destroyed. Officers are allowed to stop, pat-search, and question any person who is behaving “suspiciously”.

P OST 9/11 C HALLENGES TO I NDIVIDUAL P RIVACY After 9/11/2001, the US government passed the USA PATRIOT Act, (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) The act allows: Easier process for obtaining search warrants Broader searches with a single warrant Eavesdropping on phones, voic , s “Sneak and peek” searches The justification – violating an individual’s right to privacy can save lives

C OURT D ECISIONS 1928 – Olmstead v. US – US Supreme Court said that investigators could tap phone lines without violating the 4 th Amendment because officers were not physically entering an individual’s property Dissenting Opinion – Issued by Justice Brandeis – Argued that the 4 th Amendment protected an individual’s right to “be left alone” and should not be limited to only protected our physical property 1967 – Katz v. US – US Supreme Court reversed the decision in the Olmstead case, and concurred with Brandeis’ dissenting opinion – The 4 th Amendment protects people, not places

I MPORTANT S EARCH AND S EIZURE C ASES Weeks v. US – established the Exclusionary Rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against someone in court) Mapp v. Ohio – Incorporated the Exclusionary Rule (extended the protections of the 4 th Amendment to state governments) New Jersey v. TLO – A search based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause is considered “reasonable” under the 4 th Amendment (essentially limiting students’ rights to protection from unreasonable search and seizure)