Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Washington Search And Seizure Law: 2026 Update, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Debra L. Stephens, Justice Steven González

Seattle University Law Review

This Survey is intended to serve as a resource which Washington lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, and others can turn to as an authoritative starting point for researching Washington search and seizure law. In order to be useful as a research tool, this Survey requires periodic updates to address new cases interpreting the Washington constitution and the U.S. Constitution and to reflect the current state of the law. As the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to examine Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence, its decisions and reflections on Washington law are discussed.

Most of the Survey cases involve the Washington …

"Intolerable" Inquiries, Zachary R. Cormier

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

A growing majority of courts have broadly accepted travel-plan questions (and their follow-up questions) as a qualifying category of traffic-mission inquiries under Rodriguez, leaving officers with a clear pathway from pretextual traffic stop—to extended discussion about vehicle occupant activities outside the traffic violation—to drug dog sniff—to vehicle search. A closer analysis of Rodriguez, however, precludes such passage through the heart of its traffic-mission rule. This Article will demonstrate that travel-plan questioning cannot qualify alongside the roadway safety checks identified by Rodriguez in its traffic-mission inquiry list because such checks provide direct information about another safety-related traffic violation …

Decriminalization: A New Consideration For The Fourth Amendment Balance, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

During the past several years Maine has reevaluated the wisdom of applying criminal sanctions to certain forms of conduct. In addition to the total abrogation of a number of crimes, the Maine Legislature has reduced the statutory classification of some offenses to civil violations. Moreover, certain newly established offenses have been limited to the status of civil violations. The designation of offenses as "civil" raises the question of what constitutional safeguards should be applied to the manner in which such violations are investigated and to the process under which civil sanctions are administered. This Comment will summarize the Supreme Court's …

State V. Cloutier: Implied Invitees, Pretext And Plain View Under The Fourth Amendment, Dennis M. Doiron

Maine Law Review

Law enforcement officers often have occasion to follow the path to the front door of a residence in order to speak to its occupant. Upon answering the door, the occupant may hear a complaint about his barking dog, a query as to whether he witnessed the burglary next door, or a plea seeking support for the police department's Christmas charity drive. Occasionally, a police officer follows the path to a person's door and unexpectedly observes incriminating evidence or activities. In such cases, the police officer's conduct generates the issue of whether his observation implicates the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable …

Unfenced: The Fourth Circuit Gives Geofencing Its First Appellate Go-Ahead In United States V. Chatrie, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In United States v. Chatrie, the Fourth Circuit issued the first federal appellate opinion on the Fourth Amendment status of geofencing queries. The opinion is significant because geofences present a conceptual challenge to the framework of Carpenter v. United States, the reigning Supreme Court precedent on the Fourth Amendment status of digital searches. That opinion held that long-term tracking of a target individual was a search. However, geofencing reveals information about an indeterminate number of individuals for only a short time, in virtue of their being at a target location during a target span of time. Does the …

State V. Cloutier: Implied Invitees, Pretext And Plain View Under The Fourth Amendment, Dennis M. Doiron

Maine Law Review

Law enforcement officers often have occasion to follow the path to the front door of a residence in order to speak to its occupant. Upon answering the door, the occupant may hear a complaint about his barking dog, a query as to whether he witnessed the burglary next door, or a plea seeking support for the police department's Christmas charity drive. Occasionally, a police officer follows the path to a person's door and unexpectedly observes incriminating evidence or activities. In such cases, the police officer's conduct generates the issue of whether his observation implicates the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable …

Back To The Future: Revisiting State Constitutions To Protect Against New Technological Intrusions, Matthew Radford

Washington and Lee Law Review

The Fourth Amendment is crucial for protecting Americans from government intrusion. However, new technologies such as pole cameras, reverse keyword searches, and geofence searches provide new ways for governments to gather information about individuals. As these new technologies develop, the Fourth Amendment has struggled to advance alongside this new technology.

Thankfully, the Fourth Amendment is not the only protection Americans have from government intrusion. Every single state has its own state constitution and analog to the Federal Fourth Amendment. In fact, some states had their own analog amendments even before the adoption of the Federal Fourth Amendment. While oftentimes the …

Arrests: Legal And Illegal, Daniel Yeager

Georgia State University Law Review

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. An arrest—manifesting a police intention to transport a suspect to the stationhouse for booking, fingerprinting, and photographing—is a mode of seizure. Because arrests are so intrusive, they require roughly a fifty percent chance that an arrestable offense has occurred. Because nonarrest seizures (aka Terry stops), though no “petty indignity,” are less intrusive than arrests, they require roughly just a twenty-five percent chance that crime is afoot.

Any arrest not supported by probable cause is illegal. It would therefore seem to follow that any arrest supported by probable cause is legal. But it …

Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment: Without Your Clothes, The Fourth Amendment Goes, Courtney Murray

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—"I Smell Marijuana”—Why Arkansas’S Categorical Authorization For A Warrantless Automobile Search Is Entirely Unreasonable, W. Jennings Stanley

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

High Time For Change: The Legalization Of Marijuana And Its Impact On Warrantless Roadside Motor Vehicle Searches, Molly E. O'Connell

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The proliferation of marijuana legalization has changed the relationship between driving and marijuana use. While impaired driving remains illegal, marijuana use that does not result in impairment is not a bar to operating a motor vehicle. Scientists have yet to find a reliable way for law enforcement officers to make this distinction. In the marijuana impairment context, there is not a scientifically proven equivalent to the Blood Alcohol Content standard nor are there reliable roadside assessments. This scientific and technological void has problematic consequences for marijuana users that get behind the wheel and find themselves suspected of impaired driving. Without …

Criminal Procedure—Technology In The Modern Era: The Implications Of Carpenter V. United States And The Limits Of The Third-Party Doctrine As To Cell Phone Data Gathered Through Real-Time Tracking, Stingrays, And Cell Tower Dumps, Deepali Lal

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Computer Got It Wrong: Facial Recognition Technology And Establishing Probable Cause To Arrest, T.J. Benedict

Washington and Lee Law Review

Facial recognition technology (FRT) is a popular tool among police, who use it to identify suspects using photographs or still-images from videos. The technology is far from perfect. Recent studies highlight that many FRT systems are less effective at identifying people of color, women, older people, and children. These race, gender, and age biases arise because FRT is often “trained” using non-diverse faces. As a result, police have wrongfully arrested Black men based on mistaken FRT identifications. This Note explores the intersection of facial recognition technology and probable cause to arrest.

Courts rarely, if ever, examine FRT’s role in establishing …

Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment Search And Seizure—Online Schools During A Pandemic: Fourth Amendment Implications When The State Requires Your Child To Turn On The Camera And Microphone Inside Your Home, Conan N. Becknell

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Antiracism In Action, Daniel Harawa, Brandon Hasbrouck

Washington and Lee Law Review

Racism pervades the criminal legal system, influencing everything from who police stop and search, to who prosecutors charge, to what punishments courts apply. The Supreme Court’s fixation on colorblind application of the Constitution gives judges license to disregard the role race plays in the criminal legal system, and all too often, they do. Yet Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory challenges the facially race-neutral reasoning of criminal justice actors, often applying ostensibly colorblind scrutiny to achieve a color-conscious jurisprudence. Nor is he afraid of engaging directly in a frank discussion of the racial realities of America, rebuking those within the system …

Cloudy With A Chance Of Government Intrusion: The Third-Party Doctrine In The 21st Century, Steven Arango

Catholic University Law Review

Technology may be created by humans, but we are dependent on it. Look around you: what technology is near you as you read this abstract? An iPhone? A laptop? Perhaps even an Amazon Echo. What do all these devices have in common? They store data in the cloud. And this data can contain some of our most sensitive information, such as business records or medical documents.

Even if you manage this cloud storage account, the government may be able to search your data without a warrant. Federal law provides little protection for cloud stored data. And the Fourth Amendment may …

Preview—United States V. Cooley: What Will Happen To The Thinnest Blue Line?, Jo J. Phippin

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States ("Supreme Court") will hear oral arguments in this matter on Tuesday, March 23, 2021. This case presents the narrow issue of whether a tribal police officer has the authority to investigate and detain a non-Indian on a public right-of-way within a reservation for a suspected violation of state or federal law. The lower courts, holding that tribes have no such authority, granted James Cooley’s motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court must decide whether the lower courts erred in so deciding. While the issue before the Supreme Court is itself narrow, it has …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss: Dyer V. Smith, Brandon Hasbrouck, Katherine Mims Crocker

Scholarly Articles

This case illustrates how the First Amendment functions as an essential backstop to Fourth Amendment freedoms—and vice versa. As revealed by the national response to the killing of George Floyd and so many similar injustices, the ability to record encounters with government representatives is critical to preserving civil rights, and especially the right to avoid excessive force. The public only “became aware of the circumstances surrounding George Floyd’s death because citizens standing on a sidewalk exercised their First Amendment rights and filmed a police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck until he died.” Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., …

Peffer V. Stephens: Probable Cause, Searches And Seizures Within The Home, And Why Using Technology Should Not Open Your Front Door, Shane Landers

Texas A&M Law Review

The Fourth Amendment provides for the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Search warrants may only be issued upon a finding of probable cause. This core tenet of our constitutional republic becomes progressively flexible with every development in Fourth Amendment interpretation. In Peffer v. Stephens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered the latest blow to constitutional rights that restrict the State from engaging in unprincipled searches. In an issue of first impression, the Sixth Circuit held that a criminal defendant’s alleged use …

In General Public Use: An Unnecessary Test In Fourth Amendment Searches Using Advanced Sensing Technology, Mike Petridis

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

42nd Annual Foulston-Siefkin Lecture: The Next Wave Of Fourth Amendment Challenges After Carpenter, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This is an edited and adapted version of the 42nd Annual Foulston Siefkin Lecture, delivered at Washburn University School of Law.

The lecture discusses the future of Fourth Amendment law following the Supreme Court’s enormously important decision in Carpenter v. United States. It analyzes Carpenter and argues that its detailed account of the privacy harms caused by government surveillance will be its most important legacy. Moreover, the Court’s emphasis on the risk of privacy harm is not a one-off or a sharp break from previous practice. Carpenter is consistent with a long line of Supreme Court decisions ignoring or reshaping …

Saving America’S Privacy Rights: Why Carpenter V. United States Was Wrongly Decided And Why Courts Should Be Promoting Legislative Reform Rather Than Extending Existing Privacy Jurisprudence, David Stone

St. Mary's Law Journal

Privacy rights are under assault, but the Supreme Court’s judicial intervention into the issue, starting with Katz v. United States and leading to the Carpenter v. United States decision has created an inconsistent, piecemeal common law of privacy that forestalls a systematic public policy resolution by Congress and the states. In order to reach a satisfactory and longlasting resolution of the problem consistent with separation of powers principles, the states should consider a constitutional amendment that reduces the danger of pervasive technologyaided surveillance and monitoring, together with a series of statutes addressing each new issue posed by technological change as …

Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide.* Applying The Fourth Amendment To Connected Cars In The Internet-Of-Things Era, Gregory C. Brown, Jr.

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note will briefly discuss the key components of a Connected Car, identify who collects the data from the Car, and examine the various uses for the data. Part I also explores whether Car owners consent to the collection of their Car’s data. Part II-A will trace the historical development of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which generally permits law-enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. Part II-B will discuss how the Supreme Court has applied the Fourth Amendment to pre-Internet technologies. Part II-C will discuss two recent Fourth Amendment Supreme …

The Criminal Continues To Go Free When The Constable Blunders: Testing The Boundaries Of Curtilage—State V. Chute, 908 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 2018), Akina Khan

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall

Maine Law Review

In the endless and seemingly futile government war against drugs, protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution may have fallen by the wayside as courts struggle to deal with drug offenders. The compelling government interest in controlling the influx of drugs all too often results in a judicial attitude that the ends justify the means. Judges can be reluctant to exclude evidence of drugs found in an unlawful search pursuant to the exclusionary rule, which provides that illegally obtained evidence may not be used at trial. The exclusion of drugs as evidence in drug cases often …

Implications Of The Private Search Doctrine In A Digital Age: Advocating For Limitations On Warrantless Searches Through Adoption Of The Virtual File Approach, Brianna M. Espeland

Idaho Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Constraints On The Technological Monitoring Of Convicted Sex Offenders, Ben A. Mcjunkin, Jj Prescott

Law & Economics Working Papers

More than forty U.S. states currently track at least some of their convicted sex offenders using GPS devices. Many offenders will be monitored for life. The burdens and expense of living indefinitely under constant technological monitoring have been well documented, but most commentators have assumed that these burdens were of no constitutional moment because states have characterized such surveillance as “civil” in character — and courts have seemed to agree. In 2015, however, the Supreme Court decided in Grady v. North Carolina that attaching a GPS monitoring device to a person was a Fourth Amendment search, notwithstanding the ostensibly civil …

Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

We finally have a federal ‘test case.’ In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court is poised to set the direction of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. The case squarely presents how the twentieth-century third party doctrine will fare in contemporary times, and the stakes could not be higher. This Article reviews the Carpenter case and how it fits within the greater discussion of the Fourth Amendment third party doctrine and location surveillance, and I express a hope that the Court will be both a bit ambitious and a good measure cautious. As for ambition, the Court …

State V. Hill, Nazariy Gavrysh

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Katz V. United States: Back To The Future?, Michael Vitiello

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.