IEJS > Law > Procedure > Fourth Amendment

Leading Cases on the Fourth Amendment

• CALIFORNIA v. HODARI D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991)
  Discusses the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment.
   
• UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
  Discusses the limits of the Fourth Amendment on international searches.
   
• UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
  Discusses the effect of an illegal seizure of a person on subsequent trial.
   
• KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
  Case that began the "privacy approach" to considering the legality of searches.
   
• UNITED STATES v. PLACE, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
  There is no legitimate privacy interest in illegal activity.
   
•  BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
  Case in which the Supreme Court described the curtilage.
   
• UNITED STATES v. DUNN, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)
  Case in which the Supreme Court established a four part test to determine if a particular area fell within the curtilage.
   
• HILL v. CALIFORNIA, 401 U.S. 797 (1971)
  Discusses the concept of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. 
   
• DRAPER v. UNITED STATES, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)
  Frequently cited case wherein the Supreme Court defines probable cause.
   
• BECK v. OHIO, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) 
  Discusses probable cause and warrant requirements for a legal arrest.
   
• ILLINOIS v. GATES, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)
  Discusses probable cause based on information obtained by law enforcement from an informant.
   
• CONNALLY v. GEORGIA, 429 U.S. 245 (1977)
  The Supreme Court held that a magistrate who received money for every warrant issued was not a neutral magistrate.
   
• COOLIDGE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)
  The Supreme Court invalidated warrants issued by an Attorney General because he was not neutral or detached.  Also considered the proper scope of a search.
   
• LO-JI SALES, INC. v. NEW YORK, 442 U.S. 319 (1979)
  The Supreme Court invalidated a warrant where the issuing magistrate accompanied law enforcement on the execution of the warrant because his actions has destroyed his neutrality.
   
• SHADWICK v. CITY OF TAMPA, 407 U.S. 345 (1972)
  A judicial officer issuing a warrant need not be a lawyer or have special legal training.
   
• FRANKS v. DELAWARE, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)
  A warrant can be attacked when there is a disregard for the truth in the affidavit establishing probable cause.
   
• ALDERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 165 (1969)
  The court (in dictum) indicated that a search is permissible in the absence of the occupants. 
   
• MICHIGAN v. SUMMERS, 452 U.S. 692 (1981)
  The Supreme Court held that detaining occupants during the execution of a warrant served legitimate government interests (3) and therefore was valid.
   
• WILSON v. ARKANSAS, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
  Entering a home in violation of the Knock-and-announce rule was an unreasonable search even with a valid warrant. 
   
• RICHARDS v. WISCONSIN, ___ U.S. ____ (1997)
  "The Fourth Amendment does not permit a blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement for felony drug investigations."
   
•  ARIZONA v. HICKS, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
  Discussed seizure of items not listed in the warrant; specifically, observed items may not be seized unless there is probable cause to believe they constitute the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime.
   
•  OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
  Historical case wherein the court determined that a wiretap was not a search.  No longer good law.
   
• UNITED STATES V. DI RE , 332 U.S. 581 (1948)
  The validity of an arrest is determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs.
   
• KER v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 23 (1963)
  Since an arrest is a seizure of a person, it must comply with the Fourth Amendment to be legal.
   
• PAYTON v. NEW YORK, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
  Absent exigent circumstances, a warrant is necessary to arrest someone inside their home.

This page available at: