Amendment 4 (search and seizure)

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.

Breakdown...

• The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. 
• 4rth Amendment can, however, permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. If the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
• The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. That is if  the person actually expected some degree of privacy, or if the person's expectation is one that society is willing to recognize.
• The exclusionary rule was established by Supreme Court in 1961. If, upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal.
• Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is a rule in which the tree stands for evidence that police illegally seize, and the fruit is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence.. In addition to being excluded as evidence against the defendant, evidence resulting from an illegal search may not be used to discover other evidence.
• If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. 

Case: Bond V. U.S. 1999

No. 98-9349. Argued February 29, 2000-Decided April 17, 2000

Border Patrol Agent Cantu boarded a bus in Texas to check the immigration status of its passengers. As he walked off the bus, he squeezed the soft luggage which passengers had placed in the overhead storage space. He squeezed a canvas bag above petitioner's seat and noticed that it contained a "brick-like" object. Mter petitioner admitted owning the bag and consented to its search, Agent Cantu discovered a "brick" of methamphetamine. Petitioner was indicted on federal drug charges. He moved to suppress the drugs, arguing that Agent Cantu conducted an illegal search of his bag. The District Court denied the motion and found petitioner guilty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that Agent Cantu's manipulation of the bag was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Held: Agent Cantu's physical manipulation of petitioner's carry-on bag violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches. A traveler's personal luggage is clearly an "effect" protected by the Amendment, see United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 707, and it is undisputed that petitioner possessed a privacy interest in his bag. The Government's assertion that by exposing his bag to the public, petitioner lost a reasonable expectation that his bag would not be physically manipulated is rejected. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, and Florida v. Riley, 488 U. S. 445, are distinguishable, because they involved only visual, as opposed to tactile, observation. Physically invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection. Under this Court's Fourth Amendment analysis, a court first asks whether the individual, by his conduct, has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy; that is, whether he has shown that "he [sought] to preserve [something] as private." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740. Here, petitioner sought to preserve privacy by using an opaque bag and placing it directly above his seat. Second, a court inquires whether the individual's expectation of privacy is "one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." Ibid. Although a bus passenger clearly expects that other passengers or bus employees may handle his bag, he does not expect that they will feel the bag in an exploratory manner. But this is exactly what the agent did here.

Here is a funny video depicting the confusing side of politics on what can be determined as probable cause of search and seizure under the 4rth Amendment.

 

This image relays the message that the NSA is going against the 4th Amendment right to privacy. I believe that although survailance may have caught some issues, it has presented more especially in the area of identity theft. I also believe that wire tapping and other areas of surveilance has revoked our right to privacy.