1 / 13

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment. Protects the people’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

kathleenserrano
Download Presentation

The Fourth Amendment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Fourth Amendment • Protects the people’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures • Requires that warrants to search places and to seize people and things must be supported by probable cause and must be issued on information given under oath or affirmation

  2. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) • Definition of seizure • Applying actual physical force to suspect, or • Suspect submitting to officer’s “show of authority”

  3. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) • Random stop of car on highway for license or registration check • Fourth Amendment balancing test: • Law enforcement practice is judged by balancing • Intrusion on person’s privacy interest, versus • Promotion of legitimate governmental interests • Discretionary license check is insufficiently productive to justify intrusion on privacy interests • Court appears to approve roadblock-type license checks and truck weigh station inspections

  4. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) • DWI checkpoint is reasonable under Fourth Amendment • Balancing test • State’s interest in preventing drunk driving • Extent to which checkpoint reasonably advances that interest • Outweighs degree of intrusion on motorists who are briefly stopped • G.S. 20-16.3A: DWI checkpoint requirements

  5. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) • Checkpoint whose primary purpose is to detect illegal drugs is unconstitutional • Court did not decide • Is it constitutional for license or DWI checkpoint to have as secondary purpose the detection of illegal drugs?

  6. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) • United States v. Davis, 270 F.3d 977 (D.C. Cir. 2001): court indicates that drug enforcement as secondary purpose is constitutional • United States v. Moreno-Vargas, 315 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2002) • fixed checkpoint whose primary purpose was to investigate illegal immigration • constitutional even if secondary purpose was drug interdiction based on permanent presence of drug detection dogs

  7. “Drug checkpoint ahead” sign on highway • Driver takes first exit from highway after sign, where vehicle is stopped by officers • Reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle? • No. United States v. Yousif, 308 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2002) • Yes. State v. Mack, 66 S.W.3d 706 (Mo. 2002) • Driver commits traffic violation—running stop sign • United States v. Williams, 359 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2004)

  8. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) • Brief information-seeking vehicle checkpoint did not violate Fourth Amendment • Gravity of public concern served by checkpoint • Solving vehicular homicide • Degree to which checkpoint advanced public interest • Checkpoint tailored to investigatory need • Severity of interference with individual liberty • Wait for few minutes in line and a few seconds involvement with officers

  9. Other types of roadblocks • Dicta in City of Indianapolis v. Edmund • Court mentions roadblocks for emergencies • Catch dangerous criminal fleeing from crime • Thwart imminent terrorist attack • Other emergencies • Prison escape

  10. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) • Walking drug dog around vehicle while driver was lawfully detained for traffic stop was constitutional

  11. State v. Foreman, 351 N.C. 627 (2000) • Evading DWI checkpoint by turning onto street before checkpoint constitutes reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle

  12. State v. Mitchell, 358 N.C. 63 (2004) • Written guidelines are not required for driver’s license checkpoints • Officer received supervisory approval to conduct driver’s license checkpoint • Ruling: driver’s license checkpoint did not violate Fourth Amendment • Ruling: stop of vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion • G.S. 20-16.3A • License checkpoint that is in fact DWI checkpoint? • Checkpoints and drug dogs • Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)

  13. Driver’s License and Impaired Driving Checkpoints • State v. Sanders, 112 N.C. App. 477 (1993): SHP license checkpoint followed guidelines • State v. Barnes, 123 N.C. App. 144 (1996): SHP checkpoint substantially complied with G.S. 20-16.3A & guidelines • State v. Grooms, 126 N.C. App. 88 (1997): license checkpoint by deputies approved in advance by sheriff • State v. Tarlton, 146 N.C. App. 417 (2001): SHP officers got supervisor approval for checkpoint • State v. Colbert, 146 N.C. App. 506 (2001): DWI checkpoint proper; no requirement to designate in advance pattern for requesting Alco-Sensor testing

More Related