The fourth amendment

  • Published
  • By Airman 1st Class Stephanie Englar
  • 14th Flying Training Wing Public Affairs
COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE, Miss. --  Like the other amendments to the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment came from a need based on past grievances before the American Revolution, and has seen its share of court cases since its creation in 1791.

Before the American Revolution, the colonists endured abuse from writs of assistance, which were court orders that authorized customs officials to conduct general searches for contraband on any premises. British officials were allowed to not only search colonists' shops, but also their private residences and the writs did not have to be specific about what the officials sought. Many colonists protested that it was an invasion on their personal space. The writs of assistance were the leading factor behind the creation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment in the United States Constitution guards against unreasonable search and seizure and, absent judicially recognized exceptions, requires a warrant based on probable cause for someone to be able to search on owned property. This Amendment and its exceptions may be the most litigated of all the Constitutional Amendments. As such, it is only possible to graze the surface on this fascinating Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark criminal procedure case when it decided Mapp v. Ohio. In that case, three police officers in Ohio were told that the suspect in a bombing case might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. The officers arrived at the house and demanded entry and were turned away when Mapp told them to come back with a warrant. The officers produced what they called a "warrant" a few hours later and though a search of the home did not produce the bombing suspect, Mapp was prosecuted for unrelated crimes stemming from obscene material seized during the search. No valid search warrant was produced for trial, yet Mapp was convicted.

The Supreme Court overturned Mapp's conviction and held that evidence obtained from an invalid search is not only inadmissible in federal courts, but through the 14th Amendment is likewise inadmissible in state court prosecutions. As a result of this ruling, great emphasis is placed on ensuring searches and seizures are valid at the time of their execution or law enforcement risks losing all procured evidence and the chance to prosecute criminals.

One common exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is known as the Carroll doctrine, or "vehicle exception." The doctrine states that law enforcement officers can search an operable vehicle without the owner's consent, and without a warrant, so long as probable cause exists that the officer will find evidence of a crime.

The Carroll doctrine is based on the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Carroll v. United States, where during the time of prohibition, a man named George Carroll, known for transporting alcohol illegally, was stopped and a subsequent search revealed illegal alcohol.

When the police officers discovered the alcohol in Carroll's car, he accused them of violating his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an illegal search. Based on the impracticality of getting a warrant on a moving vehicle in the middle of the highway, especially when the officers had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal items, the Supreme Court sided with the officers.

In addition to the Carroll doctrine, random traffic checkpoints, such as sobriety checkpoints, do not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections. The United States Supreme Court found in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, that the Fourth Amendment protects against only unreasonable searches and seizures. As the government has a "substantial interest" in stopping drunk driving and the brief delay and questioning that occurs for most drivers stopped at such a checkpoint is a negligible impact on their right from unreasonable searches, such checkpoints are legally permissible.

What about military "inspections" such as random urinalysis tests and gate sweeps? Quite simply, if the purpose behind the inspection is not to search for evidence of a crime, it is not a "search" that falls under the Fourth Amendment's protections. Military commanders are charged with maintaining mission capable units and one of their tools to use includes health and welfare inspections that are permissible through Military Rule of Evidence 313 and upheld through case law.

The Fourth Amendment provides many protections and shapes criminal investigations and prosecutions arguably more than any other amendment. The Fourth Amendment is still one of the most litigated amendments to this day. It would take weeks to fully explore the complexity and all of the exceptions to the amendment. This article explains only a portion of all that the Fourth Amendment entails.