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 …

Time As A Constitutional Constraint: Resolving The Circuit Split On Prolonged Fourth Amendment, Ian Seabrooks

Washington Law Review Online

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . .” Some circuits, like the Ninth and D.C. Circuits, have interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard to apply beyond just the initial seizure of property but also to include the continued retention of the seized property. Other circuits, such as the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, have read the reasonableness standard more narrowly and interpreted this requirement to pertain only to the original seizure. …

“Are We There Yet?”: The Long Journey To Defining Motor Home Protections Under The Fourth Amendment, Ilse Ghent

Arkansas Law Review

From the time of the Revolutionary War, United States citizens have prioritized one thing over almost everything else: that “a man’s house is his castle.” This is immortalized in the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable and warrantless searches. The protections granted by the Fourth Amendment are not centered around the rights a person has in their property. Instead, “the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property.” This protection is so important that the Supreme Court has been explicitly clear that warrantless searches should only be permitted in the most “exceptional” of circumstances. One …

The Reality Of The Good Faith Exception, Matthew Tokson, Michael Gentithes

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment’s primary remedy is the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence at trial. But not every defendant whose rights are violated gets a remedy. The most substantial obstacle for defendants is the good faith exception, which directs courts to admit unlawfully collected evidence if the police can show they relied in good faith on existing authority. If the police rely on a statute that turns out to be unconstitutional, or a warrant or precedent that turns out to be invalid, the evidence they obtain will nonetheless be admitted under the good faith exception. The Supreme Court has justified this …

The Warrant Exception That Isn't: Fisa Section 702, "Defensive" Searches, And The Fourth Amendment, Noah C. Chauvin

Faculty Articles

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of non-Americans who are located overseas. Although the surveillance targets foreigners, Americans' communications are "incidentally" collected, too. Once the government has acquired Americans' communications, court-approved rules allow it to conduct warrantless searches for and through them in its Section 702 databases. Intelligence agencies have used these rules to turn this foreign intelligence program into a domestic spying tool, conducting tens of thousands of warrantless "backdoor" searches for Americans' private communications obtained under Section 702 every year.

Section 702 periodically sunsets; Congress most recently reauthorized …

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 …

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 …

Community Caretaking Exception Saves Lives . . . The Supreme Court Disagrees, Gabriella Lorenzo

Touro Law Review

As many are aware, the Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant is necessary for said activities. While there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court recently held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home. Extending this exception to the home would allow police officers to enter and engage in functions that are unrelated to the investigation of a crime. Essentially, this exception would allow police to aid individuals and prevent serious, dangerous situations to protect the community. This Note discusses why the Supreme Court erred in …

A Wolf In Sheep’S Attire: How Consent Enfeebles Our Fourth Amendment, Stephen E. Henderson, Guha Krishnamurthi

Faculty Articles

The Fourth Amendment is a mirage. On paper—in the rules studied by law students, analyzed by scholars, and proclaimed by jurists—its limitations are many and, oftentimes, significant. Yet the experience of large numbers of Americans is entirely to the contrary, thanks to the rights-annihilating, under-theorized exception of “consent.” Under its guise, law enforcement officers routinely conduct what would otherwise be constitutionally-restrained searches and seizures, and they do so without meaningful explanation or assent. Fortunately, change—whether legislative or (ideally) constitutional—could be straightforward. Thanks to other sufficient triggers, consent could be replaced by a narrow, rights-protective doctrine under which law enforcement could …

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.

Exigencies, Not Exceptions: How To Return Warrant Exceptions To Their Roots, Michael Gentithes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

When a police officer interacts with an individual, the encounter is subject to myriad exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement that lack a coherent justifying theory. For instance, officers can warrantlessly search if an automobile was involved in the interaction, an arrest occurred, or a protective sweep was necessary to prevent a third- party ambush. Officers and indi viduals struggle to understand the breadth and complexity of these exceptions. The resulting confusion breeds widespread distrust and raises the tension in millions of interactions across the country. There is an easier way. The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed its support …

In Celebration Of Dissents (And Lengthy Textbooks): How Digital Became Different For The Fourth Amendment And Why It Is Time For A Real Warrant Default, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

The last decade has brought tremendous change to the Fourth Amendment, finally resulting in a ‘digital is different’ norm. We stand at an inflection point between a monolithic, analog past and a murky future of yet-unarticulated constitutional digital policing rules. It is a good time, then, to reflect upon how we came to be here and where we ought to go. This Essay first looks back to a monumental, majestic dissent: that of Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1928 decision of Olmstead v. United States. Every American, and especially every law student, ought to know that opinion, and judges …

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 …

Reforming The High-States Gamble Of Covert Government Seizures, Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In a covert government seizure, police secretly enter a home when no one is present and seize contraband, often staging the scene to look like a burglary. These covert seizures are authorized by delayed notice search warrants. This Article identifies two serious problems with this practice and proposes reforms.

The first problem is that a successful covert seizure will likely provoke violent retaliation against innocent third parties. If the target of the covert seizure--say a drug dealer--believes someone has stolen a valuable drug stash, the dealer will seek to kill or harm whomever they believe conducted the burglary. The statute …

Law School News: 'Unmatched Opportunities' 12-16-2020, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 12-2020, Barry Bridges, Michael M. Bowden, Nicole Dyszlewski, Louisa Fredey

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Gps Tracking At The Border: A Mistaken Expectation Or A Chilling Reality, Kimberly Shi

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

In 2018, Matthew C. Allen, the Assistant Director for the Domestic Operations Division within the United States Department of Homeland Security, filed a declaration in United States v. Ignjatov describing a departmental policy allowing for the installation of a “GPS tracking device on a vehicle at the United States border without a warrant or individualized suspicion,” limited “to 48 hours.” While the Border Search Doctrine, which predates the Fourth Amendment, deems that no warrant is necessary at the border for most searches and seizures because of the government’s inherent power to control who or what comes within a nation’s borders, …

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 …

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A New Era: Digital Curtilage And Alexa-Enabled Smart Home Devices, Johanna Sanchez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Knock Or Not To Knock? No-Knock Warrants And Confrontational Policing, Brian Dolan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note proceeds in three parts. Part I begins by explaining what no-knock warrants are and why they are used. Part I then addresses recent state legislative efforts to reform no-knock warrant use and argues that these efforts, however well-intentioned, are insufficient. Part I will also provide a brief history of how no-knock warrant use developed and gives an overview of the current status of state law regarding no-knock warrants. Part II argues that, contrary to the arguments of no-knock proponents, elimination of no-knock warrants and strict adherence to the knock-and-announce requirement is a more effective way to ensure …

Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones

Cleveland State Law Review

Courts are divided as to whether law enforcement can collect cell phone location information in real-time without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment prior to law enforcement’s collection of real-time cell phone location information. Courts that have required a warrant prior to the government’s collection of real-time cell phone location information have considered the length of surveillance. This should not be a factor. The growing prevalence and usage of cell phones and cell phone technology, the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, and United States …

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 …

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.

Privacy Vs. Protection: Why Tracking Mobile-Device Location Data Without A Warrant Requires A Fourth Amendment Exception, Andrew Stover

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

State V. Hill, Nazariy Gavrysh

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Ammons, Rebecca Ruffer

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Prolonged Arm Of The Law: Fourth Amendment Principles, The Maynard Decision, And The Need For A New Warrant For Electronic Tracking, R. Reeve Wood Iii

Maine Law Review

This article examines the decision in United States v. Maynard as well as the simultaneous emergence of a vocal set of magistrate judges advocating for Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location information. It argues that, even if the Maynard rationale is widely adopted and the use of tracking devices is found to be a search, the Fourth Amendment principles of specificity and limited discretion on the part of government officers mean that the warrant frameworks currently in use will not provide adequate protection from the threat of government officers obtaining information for which they have not demonstrated a need. …

The Outer Limits: Imsi-Catchers, Technology, And The Future Of The Fourth Amendment, Ryan C. Chapman

Pepperdine Law Review

Recent advances in technology are posing new challenges for a legal system based on decades-old precedent. Nowhere is this more apparent than in law enforcement’s warrantless use of IMSI Catchers. These devices mimic a cell phone tower, and when the device is activated, cell phones will naturally connect to them. Law enforcement officers can use those intercepted cell phone signals to track a suspect’s movements in real time with startling accuracy. Scholarly commentary on these devices has largely concluded that their use requires a warrant. This Comment engages in a close examination of Fourth Amendment precedent and argues that, as …