Skip links

4Th Amendment Supreme Court Cases List

The Fourth Amendment is an important protection. If you feel that your rights under the Fourth Amendment have been violated, you need effective legal representation. Many cases depend on the proper management of Fourth Amendment rights. The police have a duty to behave in accordance with the standards set out in the constitution, but sometimes they do not always follow the rules. The law firm De Bruin has experience in helping people in difficult situations. Let us help you with your case, contact Greenville defense attorney Aaron De Bruin about your case today. Several government officials in the southern states, including the Governor and Legislature of Alabama, refused to follow Brown v. Decision of the Education Committee. They argued that states could overturn federal court decisions if they believe federal courts are violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument, ruling that only federal courts can rule in cases of a violation of the Constitution. Participate in landmark interactive Supreme Court decisions that have shaped history and impacted today`s law-abiding citizens. What are the U.S. Courts of Appeals and what is their role? These courts are the final say in the vast majority of cases that are heard by federal courts.

Learn more about the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Apply historic Supreme Court decisions to contemporary scenarios related to search and seizure issues in your school, car, and home. The case of Katz v. The United States by the Supreme Court of 1967 is another important Fourth Amendment case. Charles Katz sent illegal bets via a public phone booth. The FBI recorded his calls, and the footage was used as evidence against him at trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this evidence was inadmissible because Katz believed he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when he made the phone calls. The Supreme Court has dictated that any conversation conducted with a reasonable expectation of privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment and that the wiretap constitutes a search. The constant march of science and technology has an opportunity to bring firm law into new areas and to challenge what was once a convention. An upcoming court case results in exactly such a difficult situation – whether or not the government can search your laptop or mobile phone at border crossings without a search warrant. While it has long been accepted that the government can search for people entering the country, does that also mean emails or text messages? Another case is the TSA`s use of “body scanners,” which use some sort of sensor to create an image of a person and presumably search for them.

Take a look at these and other topical fourth amendment issues in this week`s eLesson. Terry v. Ohio is a 1968 Supreme Court decision that upheld stop-and-frisk policing. John Terry and two other men were walking suspiciously in front of a building. A police officer approached them and found a gun in Terry`s pocket. He ordered the three men to enter the building and patted them. He found a gun in one of the other men` home. Terry and his armed friend were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The Supreme Court ruled that Terry`s search was reasonable and justified by the need to protect “the police and other people nearby.” Since that case, there have been many other cases where it is acceptable for an officer to search a suspect. Police officers in Kansas City, Missouri, went to Mr. Fremont Weeks` home and used his hidden key to enter and search his home. There they took papers, letters, books and other items with them.

They did not have a search warrant. These items were used in court to convict Mr. Weeks of sending lottery tickets through the U.S. Postal Service. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the power to issue certain court orders. The Constitution did not confer this power on the Court. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Court has ruled that any contradictory law of Congress is powerless. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive measures unconstitutional is called judicial review. Honor important personalities involved in related brown v. Board of Education and Mendez v.

Westminster with a theatrical presentation for readers. A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the manager searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana accessories. A family court found T.L.O. to be a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that their rights were not violated because students reduced their expectations of privacy at school. Contrary to popular belief, the right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the United States. Constitution. Over the years, the courts have interpreted the 4th Amendment, as well as other amendments such as the 9th Amendment, to protect privacy in many situations. Cooper v Aaron (1958) Holding: States cannot overturn decisions of federal courts. The Constitution protects people from inappropriate government searches and seizures through the Fourth Amendment.

Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means. In this activity, students perform a simulation of Supreme Court deliberations that introduces them to the difficult role of courts in balancing individual rights and public safety. The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the absence of improper search and seizure. This means that law enforcement officers will need a probable reason and, in most cases, an arrest warrant to search your person or property. If there is no probable reason and you are searched illegally, all evidence collected as part of the search will be excluded from the evidence in court. This is called an exclusion rule. The district court`s judgment was set aside. The evidence gathered during the illegal search violated the 4th Amendment and was therefore inadmissible at trial. A criminal investigation must have probable cause for a search to be lawful. Probable cause must be used to obtain a search warrant. If this is not the case, the search is illegal and the evidence collected as a result of the search cannot be used in court.