1. Key Terms: SEARCHES SEIZURES WARRANTS PROBABLE CAUSE Key Questions: In what other areas, besides persons, houses, papers, and effects, are we secure? How has technology changed this? What constitutes as an “unreasonable” search or seizure? Where do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy? What is probable cause and how is it interpreted differently?

2.  Persons  clothes, wallet, purse, pockets  blood, breath  everyone (citizens and noncitizens)  Houses  house, apartment  mobile home (maybe, depends on if it’s being used as a car)  front porch (depends on the visibility and reasonable suspicion/probable cause)  Papers  diary, notebook, books  Email (maybe, depends on if there is a third party)  Text messages (maybe, depends on situation and context)  Effects  backpack, laptop  things on your person PROTECTED PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, EFFECTS

3. SEARCH  Government intrusion into an area where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy”  Subjective – YOU expect privacy (varies from person to person)  Objective – SOCIETY as a whole expects privacy (agreed consensus) SEIZURE  Government interference with an individual’s possession of a property SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

4.  Private residence  front porch vs. inside home  Business premise  reception area vs. office vs. office desk  Trash  food trash vs. sensitive documents  placing trash on private vs. public property  Public places  in a shopping mall vs. in a public restroom  on your phone on the sidewalk vs. in a phone booth  Records stored by others/third parties  Google’s monitoring of internet activities and collecting of personal data  Purse, Bag or Container  see-through vs. opaque (dark, non-transparent)  Technology  Consider the content of laptops/cell phones  Private vs. public social media accounts  Postal mail  Personal mail in envelopes vs. postcards  Police’s gather of your mail/correspondence patterns DO YOU HAVE A “REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY?”PRIVACY Write YES, NO, or DEPENDS. Be prepared to explain your reasoning.

5.  Katz v. United States (1967) LANDMARK SC CASE BackgroundConstitutional QuestionDecision Charles Katz was involved in an illegal gambling operation, using a particular payphone booth in LA to make calls. FBI suspected him of running this operation and placed a surveillance bug on the phone to record the calls. Katz was arrested, but claimed the bugging was an unreasonable search because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth. Does the 4 th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? 7-1 in favor of Katz Katz had a reasonable expectation that his calls would not be heard by anyone except the intended listener. The phone booth is a public area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

6.  California v. Greenwood (1988) LANDMARK SC CASE BackgroundConstitutional QuestionDecision Police suspected Billy Greenwood was involved in illegal drug dealing. They searched his trash on the curb and found incriminating evidence. Greenwood was arrested and convicted of drug crimes, but claimed the search of his trash was unreasonable. Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood’s garbage violate the 4 th Amendment? 6-2 in favor of California Garbage placed at the curb is unprotected because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (it has been relinquished into a public area) for anyone to see/search.

7. Reasonable Expectation  Clearly private places that society agrees upon  When you’ve taken steps to conceal your possessions/activities NO Reasonable Expectation  Clearly public areas  Exposing information/activities with or without clear intent REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY When you HAVE an expectation of privacy, a WARRANT is needed for a search or seizure to occur.

8.  A court order issued by a magistrate or judge that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search or seizure based on probable cause of suspicious activity.  Must describe place/person to be searched  Must identify what is being searched FOR WARRANTS

9.  If a search/seizure is conducted without a warrant by a law enforcement officer  UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the 4 th Amendment protects you from the government’s unreasonable actions.  You are not protected by searches/seizures conducted by private citizens.  For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard.  As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply 4 th Amendment guidelines to their conduct. WARRANTS

10. Reasonable Suspicion  a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less- reliable nature, that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous  Level of suspicion LOWER than probable cause  Cannot get warrant based on reasonable suspicion alone Probable Cause  reasonably reliable information to suspect there is a "fair probability" that a person has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence REASONABLE SUSPICION VS. PROBABLE CAUSE

11.  A police officer cannot search your car without a warrant and without your consent.  HOWEVER, if the officer suspects drug activity this could raise “reasonable suspicion.”  Red eyes, jumpy behavior, shaky hands, weird smell, etc  With reasonable suspicion, an officer can call in reinforcements or a K9 unit to confirm reasonable suspicion.  K9 unit smells drugs?  PROBABLE CAUSE and your car can be searched on the spot. REASONABLE SUSPICION VS. PROBABLE CAUSE

12.  If you consent to a search, no warrant is needed.  Police can seize anything they find on you or that is in your home/car  If no warrant, you can say you do not consent to the search. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

13.  If police do not have a warrant and you do not consent, police can search/take anything in PLAIN VIEW.  Drugs on table that can be seen from front door.  Gun on passenger side seat.  Alcohol in back seat of car. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

14.  Kyllo v. United States (2000) LANDMARK SC CASE BackgroundConstitutional QuestionDecision Federal agents suspected Danny Kyllo of growing marijuana in his home. Federal agents used a thermal- imaging device to scan his home, looking for hot areas (heat lamps, lights, etc). Hot areas were found and a judge issued a warrant to search the inside of the home. Marijuana plants were found and Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge. He claimed the search was unreasonable and evidence should not be used in court. Does the use of a thermal- imaging device to detect relative amounts of hear emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation of the 4 th Amendment? 5-4 in favor of Kyllo The government cannot use a device that is not in general public use to explore areas that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion.

15.  Evidence obtained during an unreasonable search/seizure is inadmissible in court. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

16.  Mapp v. Ohio (1960) LANDMARK SC CASE BackgroundConstitutional QuestionDecision Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials confiscated by Ohio state police during a warrantless search of her home. She appealed the conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Were the confiscated materials protected by the 1 st Amendment? May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the 4 th Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? 6-3 in favor of Mapp Brushed aside 1 st Amendment issue, and declared that all evidence obtained by unconstitutional searches/seizures is inadmissible in state courts. Applied the exclusionary rule to state/local governments.

17.  An SRO only needs reasonable suspicion, not probable cause to search a student, their belongings, lockers, car on school property, etc.  The need to maintain order and ensure the public safety of other students is paramount to 4 th Amendment protections.  Teachers and administrators can search you/your stuff because they are not agents of the government, rather private citizens. Reasonable suspicion must still be present.  The 4 th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, not private citizens.  A search is considered warranted if it is likely to produce evidence (must have reasonable suspicion).  If a search without reasonable suspicion (random searches) yields criminal evidence, it might not be admitted in court. RIGHTS AT SCHOOL

18.  TLO v. New Jersey (1983) LANDMARK SC CASE BackgroundConstitutional QuestionDecision 14 year old student was suspected of smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom. TLO denied smoking, but her friend confessed, giving reasonable suspicion to search her purse. Cigarettes and marijuana were found. During TLO’s juvenile hearing, TLO claimed her 4 th Amendment rights were violated. Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools? 6-3 in favor of New Jersey There is a limited expectation of privacy in public schools. Reasonable suspicion was present, therefore making the search reasonable.

19.  Board of Education v. Earls (2001) LANDMARK SC CASE BackgroundConstitutional QuestionDecision Students in the Tecumseh, OK School District were required to consent to urinary drug testing to participate in extra curricular activities. Several students and parents claimed the policy violated the 4 th Amendment. Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing, consistent with the 4 th Amendment? 5-4 in favor of Board of Ed. The policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among students. The urine tests were a minimal intrusion on the students “limited privacy interests” at school.