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 …

Forever Is Too Long: Rethinking Consent And Genetic Privacy Under The Fourth Amendment, Abigail Oberbeck

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Objectivity: The Problem Of Pretext In The Fourth Amendment, Monu S. Bedi

Indiana Law Journal

Pretextual encounters continue to erode the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Simply put, a police officer can act on personal bias or animus as long as the search or seizure is deemed “objectively reasonable.” Numerous scholars (e.g., Bennett Capers, Gabriel Chin, and David Harris) have critiqued this objective standard, contending it perpetuates discriminatory practices, particularly against communities of color. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself suggested that the Court might need to reconsider the legal precedent she helped establish. More recently, Orin Kerr has also argued that the Court’s reliance on objective determinations is inconsistent with …

The Search Of A Search: Moderating Reverse Internet Keyword Warrants, Tui Rademaker

Northwestern University Law Review

Statistics show that Americans consistently turn to Google and other search engines to answer their most personal and private concerns, yet a new investigative tool risks law enforcement having vast discretion in the access of this data. With a keyword warrant, law enforcement can request from a search engine provider (usually Google) a list of probative search queries that users made over a specified time period. Such warrants are beginning to face legal challenges, and so far, courts seem reluctant to recognize the constitutional implications—instead leaving law enforcement with greater potential discretion over their use.

This Note assesses the constitutionality …

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 …

After The Age Of Discretion: Policing And Privacy In A World Of Automated Roadway Enforcement, Trayce Hockstad, Lawrence Cappello

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Our Fourth Amendment attempts to harmonize in fifty-eight words the tenuous, antagonistic relationship between privacy and public safety. These two values appear to be deadlocked in a contentious legal orbit, leaving behind them a trail of fascinating but foreboding jurisprudence in American law. The fundamental need of individuals for spaces of seclusion from government surveillance has endured a slow siphoning of its constitutional protection by the encroaching definition of the “public” and the perceived need to police every person and place that may be considered so. Nowhere has this proven truer than our nation’s roadways. As the judicial system …

The Problem Of Third-Party Consent In Fourth Amendment Searches: Toward A "Conservative" Reading Of The Matlock Decision, Robert Deschene

Maine Law Review

In United States v. Matlock, the United States Supreme Court delivered its most recent and comprehensive statement on the doctrine of third-party consent. Under the doctrine, police may search a defendant's home or effects without first obtaining a judicially issued search warrant. Instead of this traditional prerequisite for a valid fourth amendment search, the police need only have the voluntary consent of a third person who possesses "common authority" over or a "sufficient relationship" to the area to be searched. At that point, the defendant's own consent becomes largely irrelevant. Both the United States and Maine constitutions provide protection against …

Computationally Assessing Suspicion, Wesley M. Oliver

Law Faculty Publications

Law enforcement officers performing drug interdiction on interstate highways have to decide nearly every day whether there is reasonable suspicion to detain motorists until a trained dog can sniff for the presence of drugs. The officers’ assessments are often wrong, however, and lead to unnecessary detentions of innocent persons and the suppression of drugs found on guilty ones. We propose a computational method of evaluating suspicion in these encounters and offer experimental results from early efforts demonstrating its feasibility. With the assistance of large language and predictive machine learning models, it appears that judges, advocates, and even police officers could …

Filling The Potholes Of Pretextual Traffic Stops: A Better Road Forward For Ohio, Jordan Weeks

Cleveland State Law Review

The Fourth Amendment was one of the driving forces behind the United States Revolution. This Amendment generally protects individuals against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. But what does “reasonable” mean in the context of a traffic stop?

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States tried answering this question. In so doing, the Court determined that pretextual traffic stops are “reasonable.” Pretextual traffic stops occur where an officer stops a vehicle and cites a lawful reason for the stop, yet the underlying reason is unlawful. The Whren Court determined that an officer’s intent is completely irrelevant to whether …

The Harms Of Heien: Pulling Back The Curtain On The Court's Search And Seizure Doctrin, Wayne A. Logan

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Heien v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that individuals can be seized on the basis of reasonable police mistakes of law. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the eight-Justice majority held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable" seizures does not bar legally mistaken seizures because "[t]o be reasonable is not to be perfect." Concurring, Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Ginsburg, emphasized that judicial condonation of police mistakes of law should be "exceedingly rare." In a solo dissent, Justice Sotomayor fairly "wonder[ed] why an innocent citizen should be made to shoulder the burden of being seized …

The Harms Of Heien: Pulling Back The Curtain On The Court's Search And Seizure Doctrine, Steven M. Goldstein --

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Heien v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that individuals can be seized on the basis of reasonable police mistakes of law. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the eight-Justice majority held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable” seizures does not bar legally mistaken seizures because “[t]o be reasonable is not to be perfect.” Concurring, Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Ginsburg, emphasized that judicial condonation of police mistakes of law should be “exceedingly rare.” In a solo dissent, Justice Sotomayor fairly “wonder[ed] why an innocent citizen should be made to shoulder the burden of being seized …

You Can’T Teach Old Katz New Tricks: It’S Time To Revitalize The Fourth Amendment, Jeremy Connell

University of Miami Law Review

For over half a century, the Court’s decision in Katz v. United States has been the lodestar for applying the Fourth Amendment. The Katz test has produced a litany of confusing and irreconcilable decisions in which the Court has carved exceptions into the doctrine and then carved exceptions into the exceptions. These decisions often leave lower courts with minimal guidance on how to apply the framework to new sets of facts and leave legal scholars and commenters befuddled and frustrated with the Court’s explanations for the rulings. The Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States represents the apex of Katz’s …

The Ambiguity Of Probable Cause And Its Contentious Application By Police, Dave Sainte-Luce

College Honors Program

It is well documented how our country’s Criminal Justice System has a history of targeting people of color. A lot of this contention is derived from police officers’ behavior when interacting with individuals, yet officers only act upon the laws and legal policies that grant them authority, including probable cause. My thesis addresses the question, how does the fluid and ambiguous nature of probable cause leave the door open for officers to disproportionately target people of color in the United States? While focusing on vehicle, person, and property searches, I first define probable cause, building an understanding of exactly what …

Are Police Officers Bayesians? Police Updating In Investigative Stops, Jeffrey A. Fagan, Lila J.E. Nojima

Faculty Scholarship

Theories of rational behavior assume that actors make decisions where the benefits of their acts exceed their costs or losses. If those expected costs and benefits change over time, behavior will change accordingly as actors learn and internalize the parameters of success and failure. In the context of proactive policing, police stops that achieve any of several goals — constitutional compliance, stops that lead to “good” arrests or summonses, stops that lead to seizures of weapons, drugs, or other contraband, or stops that produce good will and citizen cooperation — should signal to officers the features of a stop that …

“Bang!”: Shotspotter Gunshot Detection Technology, Predictive Policing, And Measuring Terry’S Reach, Harvey Gee

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

ShotSpotter technology is a rapid identification and response system used in ninety American cities that is designed to detect gunshots and dispatch police. ShotSpotter is one of many powerful surveillance tools used by local police departments to purportedly help fight crime, but they often do so at the expense of infringing upon privacy rights and civil liberties. This Article expands the conversation about ShotSpotter technology considerably by examining the adjacent Fourth Amendment issues emanating from its use. For example, law enforcement increasingly relies on ShotSpotter to create reasonable suspicion where it does not exist. In practice, the use of ShotSpotter …

Putting Together The Pieces: The Mosaic Theory And Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence Since Carpenter, Ben Vanston

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Facebook, Crime Prevention, And The Scope Of The Private Search Post-Carpenter, Connor M. Correll

Georgia Law Review

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The private search doctrine provides a notable exception to the Fourth Amendment, providing that the government may reconstruct a search previously performed by a private party without first obtaining a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court developed the private search doctrine prior to the advent of the internet; however, modern technology has changed the way that individuals live. What was once done entirely in private is now done alongside ever-present third parties, such as cell phones and virtual assistants.

Facebook and other social media sites complicate Fourth …

Alexa Hears With Her Little Ears—But Does She Have The Privilege?, Lauren Chlouber Howell

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Note: The "Border" Of Constitutional Electronic Privacy Rights: Electronic Searches And Seizures At The United States' Territorial Limits, Ryan Garippo

Notre Dame Journal on Emerging Technologies

In the recent challenge brought before the First Circuit, the court was not required to directly answer what level of particularized suspicion is required for a forensic search. Although, its holding is consistent with the jurisprudence set forth by both the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits. Furthermore, it is important to note that there have been legal challenges brought on this issue in the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits. However, in each of these cases, the court chose not to decide the constitutional question because it was not outcome determinative for the litigants in question. This disagreement between the federal circuit …

Revising Reasonableness In The Cloud, Ian Walsh

Washington Law Review

Save everything—just in case––and search for it later. This is a modern mantra fueled by the ubiquity of smartphones, laptops, tablets, and free or low-cost data storage that leads users to store massive amounts of data in the cloud. But when users trust third-party cloud storage providers with private communications, they also surrender Fourth Amendment constitutional certainty. Existing statutory safeguards for these communications are lower than Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause standards; this permits the government to seize large quantities of users’ private communications stored in the cloud with only minimal justification. Due to the revealing nature of such …

Limited Privacy In “Pings:” Why Law Enforcement’S Use Of Cell-Site Simulators Does Not Categorically Violate The Fourth Amendment, Lara M. Mcmahon

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Note proposes four factors courts should consider when asked to determine whether law enforcement’s use of a cell-site simulator constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The first asks courts to consider whether the cell-site simulator surveillance infringed on a constitutionally protected area, such as the home. The second asks courts to consider the duration of the cell-site simulator surveillance. The third asks courts to consider whether the cell-site simulator surveillance was conducted actively or passively. The fourth asks courts to focus on the nature and depth of the information obtained as a result of the cell-site simulator surveillance. If, after …

State V. Pinkham: Erosion Of Meaningful Forth Amendment Protection For Vehicle Stops In Maine?, Roger M. Clement Jr.

Maine Law Review

In State v. Pinkham, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that a police officer's stop of a motorist to inquire and advise about the motorist's improper-but not illegal-lane usage did not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable seizures. The Pinkham decision is the first time that the Law Court has validated the stop of a moving vehicle in the absence of either a suspected violation of law or an imminent, ongoing threat to highway safety.
This Note considers whether the Law Court was correct in sustaining the police officer's stop of Ronald Pinkham. …

Please Stop: The Law Court's Recent Roadblock Decisions, Jonathan A. Block

Maine Law Review

Police checkpoints or “roadblocks” have become an increasingly utilized law enforcement tool. At best, these checkpoints result in only a minor inconvenience to motorists. When abused, however, roadblocks have the potential for invidious invasions of privacy and personal freedom. Roadblocks are designed to deter, and to a lesser extent detect, criminal activity by stopping everyone—both the guilty and the law-abiding—for a brief inspection, thereby impinging to some degree on one's freedom of travel, privacy, and “right to be let alone.” Such “seizures” must be “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment in order to survive constitutional challenge. The major difference between roadblocks …

Hey Siri, How Does The Judicial System Treat Searches And Seizures Of Electronic Devices? Here’S What I Found, Sandy Davis

Mercer Law Review

In a world where access to an expansive array of information is open and freely available from our back pockets, entrenched legal notions such as privacy and property come to the fore. More to the point, the Fourth Amendment test for balancing government and possessory interests plays an ever-expanding role in shaping how government agencies search and seize our electronic devices—or more precisely, our “virtual homes.”

When the government searches and seizes personal property, it must do so within the scope of Fourth Amendment reasonableness. When that personal property is an electronic device, such a search and seizure must be …

Stingray Cell-Site Simulator Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment In The Twenty-First Century: A Review Of The Fourth Amendment In An Age Of Surveillance, And Unwarranted, Harvey Gee

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Review discusses two timely and insightful books examining the changing relationship between privacy and the Fourth Amendment in the digital era. Part I discusses the tensions between the need to protect privacy rights and the slowly evolving legal landscape during a time of rapidly changing technology, to introduce David Gray’s The Fourth Amendment in an Age of Surveillance. His book explains how the Fourth Amendment, though embattled, can have a prominent role in twenty-first century discussions of privacy, technology, and surveillance. Gray’s analysis is engaged to broaden the conversation about Stingray technology. This section analyzes a sampling of …

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

This is an essay on Professor Sarah A. Seo’s new book, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press 2019). I focus on Professor Seo’s analysis of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). Carroll is important not only because it was the Court’s first car case. Understanding Carroll (and Brinegar, which solidified and expanded Carroll’s holding) is essential because, nearly one hundred years later, its logic continues to direct how the modern Court resolves Fourth Amendment claims of motorists. Put simply, a majority of today’s …

Katz, Carpenter, And Classical Conservatism, Nicholas A. Kahn-Fogel

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

In 1967, in Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court adopted a privacy-based framework for determining whether government conduct constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. Under that standard, a search occurs when the government infringes on an expectation of privacy that "society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" Although the Court qualified its commitment to Katz in 2012 by asserting that an older, property-based approach survived Katz and remains the first-line test for identifying Fourth Amendment searches, most of the Court today is committed to preserving a role for the Katz standard. Yet, most of the justices have also recognized problems …

Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

This is an essay on Professor Sarah A. Seo’s new book, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press 2019). I focus on Professor Seo’s analysis of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). Carroll is important not only because it was the Court’s first car case. Understanding Carroll (and Brinegar, which solidified and expanded Carroll’s holding) is essential because, nearly one hundred years later, its logic continues to direct how the modern Court resolves Fourth Amendment claims of motorists. Put simply, a majority of today’s …

Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett

Maine Law Review

In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to the Fourth …