Search & Seizure (Fourth Amendment)
Rulings about searches of homes, cars, phones, and digital records, warrants, consent, and when evidence may be suppressed. Summaries from Criminal Defense Resources™ are general education for pro per/pro se defendants and families, not legal advice.
24 rulings, newest first.
Chatrie v. United States
The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained a person's Google Location History data through a geofence warrant, because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information. The Court did not decide whether this particular multi-step warrant was valid; it vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and sent the case back for that court to decide.
United States v. Smith
The Fifth Circuit held that geofence warrants are modern-day general warrants that violate the Fourth Amendment. But it did not suppress the evidence in that case, because officers relied in good faith on the warrant.
State v. Mixton
The Arizona Supreme Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Arizona Constitution's private affairs clause requires a warrant for police to obtain a person's IP address or internet subscriber information from a service provider.
United States v. Cano
The Ninth Circuit held that at the border, officers may do a manual search of a cell phone without suspicion, but a forensic (device-copying) search requires reasonable suspicion. It also held that border phone searches are limited to looking for digital contraband.
Carpenter v. United States
The Court held that when the government obtains a person's historical cell-site location records from a phone company, that is a Fourth Amendment search, and police generally need a warrant.
State v. Peoples
The Arizona Supreme Court held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his cell phone, even when the phone is left in someone else's home, and that a warrantless search of the phone violated the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Lambis
A federal trial court in New York held that agents' use of a cell-site simulator, without a warrant, to find a phone inside a specific apartment was an unconstitutional search, and it suppressed the evidence found as a result.
United States v. Graham
The full Fourth Circuit held that the government's acquisition of historical cell-site records from a phone company was not a Fourth Amendment search, applying the third-party doctrine.
State v. Valenzuela
The Arizona Supreme Court held that a DUI arrestee's consent to a blood or breath test is not voluntary under the Fourth Amendment when it follows an officer's statement that Arizona law requires the person to submit. In this case, the evidence was not suppressed because officers had relied in good faith on court decisions in effect at the time.
State v. Andrews
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by police, and that using a cell-site simulator to locate a phone requires a warrant based on probable cause. An order under the pen register statute was not enough, and the evidence was suppressed.
United States v. Davis
The full Eleventh Circuit held that obtaining historical cell-site records from a phone company with a court order under the Stored Communications Act, rather than a warrant, did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Grady v. North Carolina
In a short unsigned opinion, the Court held that a state program that attaches a satellite-based (GPS) monitoring device to a person's body to track the person's movements is a Fourth Amendment search. It sent the case back for the state courts to decide whether the search was reasonable.
Riley v. California
The Court held that police generally must get a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested.
Commonwealth v. Augustine
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the government must get a search warrant based on probable cause before obtaining two weeks of a person's historical cell-site location information from a phone company.
State v. Earls
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that under the New Jersey Constitution, police must generally get a warrant before obtaining cell-phone location information from a service provider.
Maryland v. King
The Court held that when officers arrest someone for a serious offense with probable cause and bring the person to the station, taking a DNA cheek swab is a legitimate booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, like fingerprinting and photographing.
United States v. Jones
The Court held that the government's installation of a GPS tracking device on a person's vehicle, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, was a search under the Fourth Amendment.
State v. Sweeney
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that after a traffic stop ended, an officer needed reasonable suspicion to hold the driver longer for a drug-dog sniff. Because there was no reasonable suspicion for that second detention, it was unlawful.
Arizona v. Gant
The Court held that police may search a car after arresting a recent occupant only if the arrested person could reach into the passenger area at the time of the search, or if it is reasonable to believe the car contains evidence of the crime of arrest.
United States v. Karo
The Court held that monitoring a beeper inside a private home, in a place not open to visual surveillance, is a Fourth Amendment search that generally requires a warrant.
United States v. Knotts
The Court held that using a radio beeper to follow a car on public roads was not a Fourth Amendment search, because a person traveling on public roads has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements others could see.
Terry v. Ohio
The Court held that a police officer may briefly stop a person when the officer has reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that criminal activity may be happening. If the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may do a limited pat-down of outer clothing for weapons.
Katz v. United States
The Court held that the government's recording of a man's conversation in a public phone booth, without a warrant, was a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places.
Mapp v. Ohio
The Court held that evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure cannot be used in state criminal trials. This applied the "exclusionary rule" to the states.
Get new rulings by email
A short, free email when we add new rulings and resources. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.