| • Science | • People | • Locations | • Timeline |
| Contents | ||
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.
Warrants must be issued by a magistrate or judicial officer. The officer need not be a judge, but must not be involved in the process of law enforcement; he must be "neutral and detached."
The Fourth Amendment provides that warrants may issue only upon "probable cause," a phrase whose exact definition is not found in the Constitution, but is rather based on judicial interpretation. Mere assertions by a witness that an individual committed a crime do not constitute probable cause; it is necessary for the witness to describe the basis of such assertions. Furthermore, the witness must also provide evidence of his or her credibility. In Jones v. United States ( 1960), the Supreme Court held that the affidavit must be considered as a whole in determining the basis of the affiant's information and its credibility. In Aguilar v. Texas ( 1964), however, the Supreme Court rejected the "totality" test, holding that the basis of information and credibility were to be determined separately. In Illinois v. Gates ( 1983), the Court once again returned to the totality test, rejecting the idea that credibility and basis for information should be considered separately. Justice William Rehnquist held that "a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other."
The seizure of "contraband and the fruits and instrumentalities of crime" has never been questioned. In Gouled v. United States ( 1921), the Supreme Court held that items could not be seized merely for the purpose of utilizing them as evidence. The Court decided that the confiscation of evidence that the defendant had no desire to turn over constituted forcing the defendant to incriminate him or herself, an action prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. The decision was overturned in Warden v. Hayden ( 1967); the Court held that the items seized were not "testimonial or communicative in nature, and their introduction therefore did not compel respondent to become a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment." Under Andreson v. Maryland ( 1976), the Supreme Court held that as long as the defendant is not compelled to authenticate them, documents could be admitted as evidence, even if they were "testimonial" in nature.
Books, movies and other forms of media are subject to seizure, in order to enforce obscenity laws or otherwise, though the courts must carefully scrutinize the seizure in order to ensure that freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is not violated. At a minimum, officers require a warrant to seize literature. The assertions of a police officer are not sufficient basis for the issuance of a warrant; the issuer of the warrant must make an inquiry into the factual basis of the conclusions drawn. For example, the magistrate may not issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of several copies of an allegedly obscene book from a publisher without first examining a sample of the publication in question. The Fourth Amendment's requirement that the warrant "particularly" describe the things to be seized is interpreted strictly; in Stanford v. Texas ( 19651965 was a common year starting on Friday (the link is to a full 1965 calendar). Events January-February January 4 United States President Lyndon Johnson proclaims his " Great Society" during his State of the Union address. January 14 Prime Ministers of N), for example, the Supreme Court invalidated a warrant that authorized the seizure of literature "concerning the Communist Party of Texas" on the grounds of lack of particularity.
At common law, an officer could not break in to a home, even when authorized by warrant, unless after announcing his authority and purpose he was refused admittance. The Supreme Court has held that, in most circumstances, a reasonable search had to be preceded by an announcement made by the police officer. In some situations, the "knock and announce" rule does not apply, for instance when the officers reasonably believe that the destruction of evidence would ensue were they to make such an announcement.