# Legal rule combination: Previously the government might need to search every house to confiscate guns, and such a search would violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

An example of the legal basis for the right to physical privacy is the US Fourth Amendment which guarantees " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ".

At a federal level, racial profiling is challenged by both the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from search and seizure without a warrant ( which is to be issued " upon probable cause "), and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.

" A large group of artists, including Martin Scorsese and Alec Baldwin, and scholars signed a legal brief arguing the film's artistic merit ; the Court dismissed the case because the police violated the owners ' Fourth Amendment rights, without reaching the question of whether the film was obscene.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled: ( 1 ) that the term owner in the Third Amendment includes tenants ( paralleling similar cases regarding the Fourth Amendment, governing search and seizure ), ( 2 ) National Guard troops count as soldiers for the purposes of the Third Amendment, and ( 3 ) that the Third Amendment is incorporated ( that is, that it applies to the states ) by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment ( Amendment IV ) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine.

William Cuddihy, Ph. D. in his dissertation entitled The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, claims there existed a " colonial epidemic of general searches.

This prohibition became precedent for the Fourth Amendment:

Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of the Rights written by John Adams and enacted in 1780 as part of the Massachusetts Constitution added the requirement that all searches must be “ reasonable ” and served as the basis for the language of the Fourth Amendment:

The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that generally a warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest.

The Fourth Amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.

However, in Mapp v. Ohio,, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As federal criminal jurisdiction expanded to include other areas, such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that some searches and seizures may violate the reasonableness requirement under the Fourth Amendment, even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.

A threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a search has occurred.

In the United States, Constitutional guarantees such as those included in the Fourth and Fifth amendments to protect an accused from unreasonable search and seizure or from self-incrimination have been referred to as " technicalities " by critics of court decisions based on them, even though they are foundations of the American legal system rather than obscure fine points.

The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees persons the right against unreasonable searches or seizures.

There is not much that remains of the Fourth Amendment rights of probationers after waiving their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided that performing surveillance of private property ( ostensibly to detect high emission grow lights used in clandestine marijuana farming ) using thermal imaging cameras without a search warrant by law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

* Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution — part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 ( 1961 ), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against " unreasonable searches and seizures ," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts.

In September 2011, an appeals court ruled that United States officials correctly designated the charity as supporting terrorism, but found the Treasury department ’ s Office of Foreign Assets Control improperly seized the charity ’ s assets using a “ blocking order ” to freeze them without a warrant supported by probable cause, violating the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures, and that they also violated the charity's procedural due process rights by failing to give a post-seizure explanation of the basis for the seizure.

The right to contraceptives was found in what the Court called the " penumbras ", or shadowy edges, of certain amendments that arguably refer to certain privacy rights, such as the First Amendment ( protecting freedom of expression ), Third Amendment ( protecting homes from being used by soldiers ), and Fourth Amendment ( security against unreasonable searches ).

He then appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, arguing that the requirement that he identify himself to any police officer upon request violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968 ), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person " may be armed and presently dangerous.

The Fourth Amendment protects " people, not places ", against " unreasonable searches and seizures ".

But the Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable searches and seizures, so the Court next had to determine whether Terry ’ s seizure and search were " reasonable ".

The Terry doctrine was markedly extended in the 2004 Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,, which held that a state law requiring the suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

A suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan on behalf of students impacted by the search claiming Fourth Amendment rights violations against unreasonable search and seizure and the Fourteenth Amendment rights violation involving an equal protection violation.

She fought the search, claiming it violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U. S. 177, the Court held that a Nevada statute requiring such identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment ’ s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment ’ s privilege against self incrimination.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that " 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.

In Mapp, the Court overruled Wolf v. Colorado,, in which the Court had ruled that while the Fourth Amendment applied to the states ( meaning that they were bound not to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures ), the exclusionary rule did not ( meaning that they were free to fashion other remedies for criminal defendants whose possessions had been illegally seized by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment ).

Some people have objected that the tactic violates the United States Constitution ; the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, contains a provision against unreasonable search and seizure.

In 1914, the U. S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.

If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person's liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment — there has been no seizure.

The Fourth Amendment does not apply to a seizure or an arrest by private citizens.

Under Rakas v. Illinois,, a defendant has standing to object to the admission of unconstitutionally seized evidence only if such seizure violated that defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.

An investigatory stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

After the 1984 Supreme Court decision in California v. Greenwood, in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside of a home, paper shredders became more popular among US citizens with privacy concerns.

Like most of the French left, < span lang =" fr "> Mendès France </ span > opposed < span lang =" fr "> de Gaulle </ span >' s seizure of power in May 1958, when the mounting crisis in Algeria brought about a breakdown in the Fourth Republic system and the creation of a Fifth Republic.

Some jurisdictions require offenders under such supervision to waive their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment regarding search and seizure, and such probationers may be subject to unannounced home or workplace visits, surveillance, and the use of electronic monitoring or satellite tracking.

The court held that constructive searches are limited by the Fourth Amendment, where actual search and seizure requires a warrant based on “ probable cause ”.

The defense of the charged individuals moved to suppress the use of the seized weapons as evidence on grounds that the search and subsequent seizure were a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court rejected the idea that a " stop and frisk " could categorically never be a search or seizure subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

These include the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to free assembly, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right, recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.

The judge, known for being a strict constructionist rules that Clifford's Fourth Amendment rights to unlawful search and seizure were violated and he is free to go, upon which Clifford asks for his gun collection back.

The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure " reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words ".

The main consequence of the unanimous ruling in Weeks was that in a federal prosecution, the Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure.

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Hugo L. Black notes that as per his previous dissents, he agrees that the Fourth Amendment ’ s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizure is enforceable against the states.

He commanded the Fourth Division in the seizure of Roi-Namur in the Battle of Kwajalein and in the battle for Saipan.

Weeks v. United States,, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.