Page 212

Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

N.D.Ill.: Withheld video of CPD shooting revealed during …

Posted: January 29, 2016 at 3:44 pm

ABA Journal's Blawg 100 (2015)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-16, online since Feb. 24, 2003 real non-robot URL hits since 2010; approx. 18k posts since 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit Federal Circuit Foreign Intell.Surv.Ct. FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts, other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General's site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Curiae (Yale Law) Oyez Project (NWU) "On the Docket"Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf) Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: --Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." Me

I still learn something new every day. Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, "The Who Live at Hyde Park" (Showtime 2015)

"I can't talk about my singing. I'm inside it. How can you describe something you're inside of?" Janis Joplin

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government." Shemaya, in the Thalmud

"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment. Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth." Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up." Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men! "The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive
enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)

See the original post:
N.D.Ill.: Withheld video of CPD shooting revealed during ...

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

Fourth Amendment – Kids | Laws.com

Posted: at 3:44 pm

A Guide to the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment, or Amendment IV of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that protects people from being searched or having their things taken away from them without any good reason. If the government or any law enforcement official wants to do that, he or she must have a very good reason to do that and must get permission to perform the search from a judge. The fourth amendment was introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a part of the Bill of Rights on September 5, 1789 and was ratified or voted four by three fourths of the states on December 15, 1791.

The Text of the Fourth Amendment

The text of the Fourth Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

History of the Third Amendment

In Colonial America, laws were written in order to help the English earn money on customs. The justices of the peace would do this by writing general warrants, which allowed general search and seizure to happen. Massachusetts wrote a law in 1756 that banned these warrants, because tax collectors were abusing their powers by searching the colonists homes for illegal goods. These general warrants allowed any messenger or officer to search a suspected place without any evidence. It also allowed them to seize people without even saying what they did wrong or showing evidence of their wrongdoings. Virginia also banned the use of general warrants later due to other fears. These actions later led to the addition of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Amendment Today

Today, the Fourth Amendment means that in order for a police officer to search and arrest someone, he or she will need to get permission or a warrant to do so from a judge. In order to get a warrant, the police officer must have evidence or probable cause that supports it. The police officer, or whoever has the evidence, must swear that it is true to his or her knowledge.

Facts About the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment applies to the government, but not any searches done by organizations or people who are not doing it for the government.

Some searches can be done without a warrant without breaking the law, like when there is a good reason to think that a crime is happening.

comments

See the original post:
Fourth Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution …

Posted: January 19, 2016 at 3:33 pm

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.

When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 63 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.

Poll tax

Cumulative poll tax (missed poll taxes from prior years must also be paid to vote)

No poll tax

Southern states adopted the poll tax as a requirement for voting as part of a series of laws intended to marginalize black Americans from politics so far as practicable without violating the Fifteenth Amendment. This required that voting not be limited by "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." All voters were required to pay the poll tax, but in practice it most affected the poor. Notably this impacted both African Americans and poor white voters, some of whom had voted with Populist and Fusionist candidates in the late 19th century, temporarily disturbing Democratic rule. Proponents of the poll tax downplayed this aspect and assured white voters they would not be affected. Passage of poll taxes began in earnest in the 1890s, as Democrats wanted to prevent another Populist-Republican coalition. Despite election violence and fraud, African Americans were still winning numerous local seats. By 1902, all eleven states of the former Confederacy had enacted a poll tax, many within new constitutions that contained other provisions to reduce voter lists, such as literacy or comprehension tests. The poll tax was used together with grandfather clauses and the "white primary", and threats of violence. For example, potential voters had to be "assessed" in Arkansas, and blacks were utterly ignored in the assessment.[2]

From 19001937, such use of the poll tax was nearly ignored by the federal government. Some state-level initiatives repealed it. The poll tax survived a legal challenge in the 1937 Supreme Court case Breedlove v. Suttles, which ruled that "[The] privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the state and, save as restrained by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the state may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate."[3]

The issue remained prominent, as most African Americans in the South were disenfranchised. President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke out against the tax. He publicly called it "a remnant of the Revolutionary period" that the country had moved past. However, Roosevelt's favored liberal Democrats lost in the 1938 primaries to the reigning conservative Southern Democrats, and he backed off the issue. He felt that he needed Southern Democratic votes to pass New Deal programs and did not want to further antagonize them.[4] Still, efforts at the Congressional level to abolish the poll tax continued. A 1939 bill to abolish the poll tax in federal elections was tied up by the Southern Block, lawmakers whose long tenure in office from a one-party region gave them seniority and command of numerous important committee chairmanships. A discharge petition was able to force the bill to be considered, and the House passed the bill 25484.[5] However, the bill was unable to defeat a filibuster in the Senate by Southern senators and a few Northern allies who valued the support of the powerful and senior Southern seats. This bill would be re-proposed in the next several Congresses. It came closest to passage during World War II, when opponents framed abolition as a means to help overseas soldiers vote. However, after learning that the US Supreme Court decision Smith v. Allwright (1944) banned use of the "white primary," the Southern block refused to approve abolition of the poll tax.[6]

In 1946, the Senate came close to passing the bill. 24 Democrats and 15 Republicans approved an end to debate, while 7 non-southern Democrats and 7 Republicans joined with the 19 Southern Democrats in opposition. The result was a 39-33 vote in favor of the bill, but the filibuster required a two-thirds supermajority to break at the time; a 48-24 vote was required to pass the bill.[clarification needed] Those in favor of abolition of the poll tax considered a constitutional amendment after the 1946 defeat, but that idea did not advance either.[7]

The tenor of the debate changed in the 1940s. Southern politicians tried to shift the debate to Constitutional issue, but private correspondence indicates that black disenfranchisement was still the true concern. For instance, Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo declared, "If the poll tax bill passes, the next step will be an effort to remove the registration qualification, the educational qualification of Negroes. If that is done we will have no way of preventing the Negroes from voting."[8] This fear explains why even Southern Senators from states that had abolished the poll tax still opposed the bill; they did not want to set a precedent that the federal government could interfere in state elections.

President Harry S. Truman established the President's Committee on Civil Rights, which among other issues investigated the poll tax. Considering that opposition to federal poll tax regulation in 1948 was claimed as based on the Constitution, the Committee noted that a constitutional amendment might be the best way to proceed. Still, little occurred during the 1950s. Members of the anti-poll tax movement laid low during the anti-Communist frenzy of the period; some of the main proponents of poll tax abolition, such as Joseph Gelders and Vito Marcantonio, had been committed Marxists.[9]

President John F. Kennedy returned to this issue. His administration urged Congress to adopt and send such an amendment to the states for ratification. He considered the constitutional amendment the best way to avoid a filibuster, as the claim that federal abolition of the poll tax was unconstitutional would be moot. Still, some liberals opposed Kennedy's action, feeling that an amendment would be too slow compared to legislation.[10]Spessard Holland, a conservative Democrat from Florida, introduced the amendment to the Senate. Holland opposed most civil rights legislation during his career,[11] and Kennedy's gaining of his support helped splinter monolithic Southern opposition to the Amendment. Ratification of the amendment was relatively quick, taking slightly more than a year; it was rapidly ratified by state l
egislatures across the country from August 1962 to January 1964.

President Lyndon B. Johnson called the amendment a "triumph of liberty over restriction" and "a verification of people's rights."[12] States that maintained the poll tax were more reserved. Mississippi's Attorney General, Joe Patterson, complained about the complexity of two sets of voters - those who paid their poll tax and could vote in all elections, and those who had not and could only vote in federal elections.[12] Additionally, non-payers of the poll tax could still be deterred by requirements that they register far in advance of the election and retain records of such registration.[13] States such as Alabama also exercised discrimination in the application of literacy tests.

Ratified amendment, 196264

Ratified amendment post-enactment, 1977, 1989, 2002, 2009

Rejected amendment

Didn't ratify amendment

Congress proposed the Twenty-fourth Amendment on August 27, 1962.[14][15] The amendment was submitted to the states on September 24, 1962, after it passed with the requisite two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.[12] The following states ratified the amendment:

Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. The Georgia legislature did make a last-second attempt to be the 38th state to ratify. This was a surprise as "no Southern help could be expected"[13] for the amendment. The Georgia Senate quickly and unanimously passed it, but the House did not act in time.[12] Georgia's ratification was apparently dropped after South Dakota's ratification.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

The amendment was specifically rejected by the following state:

The following states have not ratified the amendment:

Arkansas effectively repealed its poll tax for all elections with Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution at the November 1964 general election, several months after this amendment was ratified. The poll-tax language was not completely stricken from its Constitution until Amendment 85 in 2008.[16] Of the five states originally affected by this amendment, Arkansas was the only one to repeal its poll tax; the other four retained their taxes until they were struck down in 1966 by the US Supreme Court decision in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), which ruled poll taxes unconstitutional even for state elections. Federal district courts in Alabama and Texas, respectively, struck down their poll taxes less than two months before the Harper ruling was issued.

The state of Virginia accommodated the amendment by providing an "escape clause" to the poll tax. In lieu of paying the poll tax, a prospective voter could file paperwork to gain a certificate establishing a place of residence in Virginia. The papers would have to be filed six months in advance of voting and the voter had to provide a copy of certificate at the time of voting. This measure was expected to decrease the number of legal voters.[17] In the 1965 Supreme Court decision Harman v. Forssenius, the Court unanimously found such measures unconstitutional. It declared that for federal elections, "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed."[18]

While not directly related to the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) ruled that the poll tax was unconstitutional at every level, not just for federal elections. The Harper decision relied upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. As such, issues related to whether burdens on voting are equivalent to poll taxes in discriminatory effect have usually been litigated on Equal Protection grounds since.

More here:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

Fourth Amendment.com

Posted: October 22, 2015 at 7:45 am

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links [Crtl+F to search]

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S. Ct. 683, 4 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1960) Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1972) Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1925) Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964) Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 114 S. Ct. 807, 127 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1994) Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990) Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1969) Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 96 S. Ct. 2737, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1976) Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 131 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1995) Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009) Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S. Ct. 1149, 94 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1987) Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S. Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009) Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979) Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011) Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 149 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2001) Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013) Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979) Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S. Ct. 1873, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040 (1967) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984) Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971) Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 122 S. Ct. 2559, 153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002) Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 120 S. Ct. 1462, 146 L. Ed. 2d 365 (2000) Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886) Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 168 L. Ed.2d 132 (2007) Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed.2d 650 (2006) Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949) Brower v. Inyo County, 489 U.S. 593, 109 S. Ct. 1378, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628 (1989). Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1975) Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S. Ct. 1565, 36 L. Ed. 2d 208 (1973) Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1968) California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S. Ct. 1625, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1988) California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991) Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 37 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1973) Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Company, 416 U.S. 663, 94 S. Ct. 2080, 40 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1974) California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S. Ct. 2066, 85 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1985) California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S. Ct. 1809, 90 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1986) Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967) Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (2011) Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1974) Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1925) Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970) Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S. Ct. 1295, 137 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1997) Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 81 S. Ct. 776, 5 L. Ed. 2d 828 (1961) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 232 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969) City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 383 (2000) City of Los Angeles v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 127 S. Ct. 1989, 167 L. Ed. 2d 974 (2007) City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L. Ed. 2d 216 (2010) Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 185 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2013) Colonnade Catering Corporation v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S. Ct. 774, 25 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1970) Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1987) Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971). Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S. Ct. 611, 34 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1973) County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S. Ct. 1661, 114 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1991) Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S. Ct. 2000, 36 L. Ed. 2d 900 (1973) Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 99 S. Ct. 1682, 60 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1979) Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S. Ct. 1394, 22 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1969) Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2011) Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S.648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979) Donovan v. Dewey, 398 U.S. 427, 101 S. Ct. 2534, 69 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1981) Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 106 S. Ct. 1819, 90 L. Ed. 2d 226 (1986) Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1979) Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 88 S. Ct. 1472, 20 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1968) Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 4 L. Ed.2d 1669 (1960) Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howells St. Tr. 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B. 1765) Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 121 S. Ct. 1281, 149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001) Fernandez v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (2014) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 182 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012) Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1991) Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013) Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013) Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2000) Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1991) Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 109 S. Ct. 693, 102 L. Ed. 2d 835 (1989) Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990) Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 119 S. Ct. 1555, 143 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1999) Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978) Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740, 89 S. Ct. 1420, 22 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1969) Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S. Ct. 1515, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006) Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1975) G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 97 S. Ct. 619, 50 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1977) Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S. Ct. 1245, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1503 (1958) Go-Bart Importing v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 51 S. Ct. 153, 75 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1931) Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S. Ct. 3164, 97 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1987) Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (2004) Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906) Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S. Ct. 445, 68 L. Ed. 2d 898 (1924) Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004) Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 91 S. Ct. 1106, 28 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1971) Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S. Ct. 408, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1966) Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990) Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006) Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984) Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 103 S. Ct. 3319, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (1983) Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005) Illinois v. Gates, 459 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983) Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 107 S. Ct. 1160, 94 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1987) Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S. Ct. 2605, 77 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1983) Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S. Ct. 885, 157 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2004) Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 121 S. Ct. 946, 148 L. Ed. 2d 838 (2001) Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 111 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1990) Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S. Ct. 673, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2000) INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 104 S. Ct. 1758, 80 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1984) INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 104 S. Ct. 3479, 82 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1984) James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307, 110 S. Ct. 648, 107 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1990) Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 100 S. Ct. 2124, 65 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1980) Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1948) Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960) Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967) Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 123 S. Ct. 1843, 155 L. Ed. 2d 814 (2003) Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011) Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986) Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 119 S. Ct. 484, 142 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1998) Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346, 77 S. Ct. 828, 1 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1957) Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001) Leach v. Money [Three King's Messengers], 19 Howell's St. Tr. 1001, 97 Eng. Rep. 1074 (K.B. 1765) Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S. Ct. 424, 17 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1966) Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S. Ct. 1381, 10 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1963) Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 83 S. Ct. 917, 9 L. Ed. 2d 922 (1963) Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 89 L. Ed. 2d 871 (1986) Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S. Ct. 2120, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1154 (1968) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 81 S. Ct. 1708, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1127 (1961) Marshall v. Barlows, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 98 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1978) Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1990) Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 107 S. Ct. 1013, 94 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1987) Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 186 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013) Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 105 S. Ct. 2778, 86 L. Ed. 2d 370 (1985) Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795, 157 L. Ed. 2d 769 (2003) Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S. Ct. 882, 137 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1997) Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 104 S. Ct. 3424, 82 L. Ed. 2d 737 (1984) Massacusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 104 S. Ct. 2085, 80 L. Ed.2d 721 (1984) McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S. Ct. 191, 93 L. Ed. 2d 153 (1948) Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 104 S. Ct. 641, 78 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1984) Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 99 S. Ct. 2627, 61 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1979) Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S. Ct. 546, 175 L. Ed. 2d 410 (2009) Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983) Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981) Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S. Ct. 2357, 41 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1974) Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S. Ct. 1942, 56 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1978) Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S. Ct. 2481, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1990) Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S. Ct. 1190, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1332 (1958) Miller v. United States, 425 U.S. 435, 96 S. Ct. 1619, 48 L. Ed. 2d 71 (1976) Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998) Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 124 L. Ed.2d 334 (1993) Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1990) Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978) Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013) Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 S. Ct. 1465, 161 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2005) Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 108 S. Ct. 2529, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1988) Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 2d 307 (1939) National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S. Ct. 1384, 103 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1989) New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985) New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981) New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 107 S. Ct. 2636, 96 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1987) New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 106 S. Ct. 960, 89 L. Ed. 2d 81 (1986) New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 106 S. Ct. 1610, 89 L. Ed. 2d 871 (1986) Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984) OConnor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987) Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 117 S. Ct. 417, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996) Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1984) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1928) On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S. Ct. 967, 96 L. Ed. 1270 (1952) One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S. Ct. 1246, 14 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1965) Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996) Paxton's Case (Boston Super.Ct. 1761) Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009) Pennsylvania v. Labron, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1984) Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S. Ct. 330, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1977) Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 118 S. Ct. 2014, 141 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1998) Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964) Raddatz v. United States, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980) Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978) Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 65 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1980) Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 100 S. Ct. 2752, 65 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1980) Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 137 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1997) Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 101 S. Ct. 2841, 69 L. Ed. 2d 744 (1981) Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 2d 183 (1952) Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S. Ct. 2633, 174 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2009) Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006) Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2006) Sacramento County v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1988) Saucier v. Katz, 531 U.S. 991, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001) Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966) Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973) Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007) Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S. Ct. 1717, 56 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1978) See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S. Ct. 1737, 18 L. Ed. 2d 943 (1967) Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S. Ct. 3380, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1984) Seymane's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K. B. 1603) Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 53 S. Ct. 138, 77 L. Ed. 260 (1932) Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 81 S. Ct. 679, 5 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1961) Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S. Ct. 967, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1247 (1968) Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 103 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1989) Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1979) Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1993) South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1976) Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969) Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 85 S. Ct. 506, 13 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1965) Stanton v. Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2013) Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S. Ct. 1642, 68 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1981) Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976) Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S. Ct. 889, 11 L. Ed. 2d 856 (1964) Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S. Ct. 1535, 75 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1983) Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127, 158 L. Ed. 2d 905 (2004) Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 99 S. Ct. 2425, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1979) United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S. Ct. 744, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002) United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 124 S. Ct. 521, 157 L. Ed.2d 343 (2003) United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 95 S.Ct. 915, 43 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975) United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S. Ct. 1593, 32 L. Ed. 2d 87 (1972) United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607, 95 S. Ct. 2574 (1975) United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 99 S. Ct. 1465, 59 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1979) United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974) United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S. Ct. 1054, 55 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1978) United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977) United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981) United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S. Ct. 1244, 63 L. Ed. 2d 537 (1980) United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1948) United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 764, 35 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1973) United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 122 S. Ct. 2105, 153 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2002) United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 107 S. Ct. 1134, 94 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1987) United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S. Ct. 1234, 39 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1974) United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 124 S. Ct. 1582, 158 L. Ed. 2d 311 (2004) United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 126 S. Ct. 1494, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006) United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 80 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1984) United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 114 S. Ct. 492, 126 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1994) United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 96 S. Ct. 3021, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1046 (1976) United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S. Ct. 93, 96 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1951) United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2012) United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 104 S. Ct. 3296, 82 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1984) United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2001) United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S. Ct. 1081, 75 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1983) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984) United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 93 S. Ct. 774, 35 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1973) United States v. Martinez-Fuarte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S. Ct. 3074, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116 (1976) United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S. Ct. 988, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1974) United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980) United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985) United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 113 S.Ct. 1936, 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (1993) United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983) United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S. Ct. 248, 13 L. Ed.2d 112 (1964) United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 118 S. Ct. 992, 140 L. Ed. 2d 191 (1998) United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 97 S. Ct. 1972, 52 L. Ed. 2d 617 (1977) United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S. Ct. 467, 38 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1973) United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982) United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S. Ct. 2547, 65 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1980) United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1976) United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985) United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989) United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 92 S. Ct. 2125, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1972) United States v. Van Leeuwan, 397 U.S. 249, 90 S. Ct. 1029, 25 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1970) United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965) United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 110 S. Ct. 1056, 108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990) United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1971) Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S. Ct. 1969, 26 L. Ed. 2d 409 (1970) Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008) Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995) Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 1362, 127 S. Ct. 2090, 167 L. Ed. 2d 807 (2007) Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 100 S. Ct. 2395, 65 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1980) Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 102 S. Ct. 812, 70 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1982) Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 100 S. Ct. 2124, 65 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1980) Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914) Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1984) Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S. Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1971) Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996) Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's St. Tr. 1153, 98 Eng. Rep. 489 (K.B. 1763) Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 115 S. Ct. 1914, 131 L. Ed. 2d 976 (1995) Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 119 S. Ct. 1692, 143 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1999) Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984) Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963) Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999) Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 100 S. Ct. 338, 62 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1979) Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 56 L. Ed. 2d 525, 98 S. Ct. 1970 (1978)

Back to blog

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Fourth Amendment consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book Search and seizure law consulting http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit FDsys: Many district courts FDsys: Many federal courts FDsys: Other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Most recent SCOTUS cases: 2009 to date:

2013-14 Term: Riley v. California, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog) United States v. Wurie, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog) Plumhoff v. Rickard, granted Nov. 15, argued Mar. 4 (ScotusBlog) Stanton v. Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (Nov. 4, 2013) (per curiam) Navarette v. California, granted Oct.1, argued Jan. 21 (ScotusBlog) Fernandez v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (Feb. 25) (ScotusBlog)

2012-13 Term: Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (ScotusBlog)

2011-12 Term: Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) (other blog) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (ScotusBlog) United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (ScotusBlog) Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (ScotusBlog)

2010-11 Term: Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (ScotusBlog) Camreta v. Greene, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (ScotusBlog) Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (ScotusBlog) Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (ScotusBlog)

2009-10 Term: Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog) City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010) (ScotusBlog)

2008-09 Term: Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (ScotusBlog)

Congressional Research Service: Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." Me

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government." Shemaya, in the Thalmud

Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment. Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth." Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men! Pep Le Pew

"There is never enough time, unless you are serving it." Malcolm Forbes

"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland …

Posted: October 5, 2015 at 7:45 pm

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Location Ireland Date 22May2015(2015-05-22) Results Votes Of total Yes 1,201,607 700162070000000000062.07% No 734,300 700137930000000000037.93% Valid votes 1,935,907 700199290000000000099.29% Invalid or blank votes 13,818 69997100000000000000.71% Total votes 1,949,725 100.00% Voter turnout 700160520000000000060.52% Electorate 3,221,681 Results by constituency How the electorate voted, by constituency. Proportion of the valid poll voting yes:

72.5%75%

70%72.49%

67.5%69.99%

65%67.49%

62.5%64.99%

60%62.49%

57.5%59.99%

55%57.49%

52.5%54.99%

50%52.49%

48.58%

The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, requires the state to provide for same-sex marriage. It was effected by the Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Act 2015 (previously Bill No. 6 of 2015), which was approved at a referendum on 22 May 2015 by 62% of voters on a turnout of 61%.[1][2] This was the first time that a country legalised same-sex marriage through a popular vote.[3][4] The bill was signed into law by the President of Ireland on 29 August 2015.[5] The signing into law had been delayed to allow for two legal challenges regarding the conduct of the referendum. The Court of Appeal dismissed the petitions on 30 July 2015.[6]

The amendment inserted a new section 4 to Article 41 of the Constitution. The English text reads:

4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

The Irish text reads:

4. Fadfaidh beirt, gan beann ar a ngnas, conradh psta a dhanamh de rir dl.

The text in Irish and English is intended to have the same meaning; in the event of a conflict, the Irish version takes precedence.[7][8]

The Irish text of the amendment as introduced was:[9]

4. Fadfaidh beirt, cib acu is fir n mn iad, conradh a dhanamh i leith psadh de rir dl.

Journalist Bruce Arnold argued against the bill in two articles in The Irish Times, one of which focused on alleged issues with the Irish text.[7][10] Arnold argued that the Irish text describes only same-sex couples, thus rendering opposite-sex marriage illegal.[7] Government sources pointed out the words impugned by Arnold ("beirt" and "cib acu is fir n mn") are already used with similar intent elsewhere in the constitution.[11] Counterpoints from legal academics were that Arnold's strict constructionist interpretation would be trumped by the doctrine of absurdity, and that failure to mention opposite-sex marriage would not make it illegal.[11] Some argued that the Irish text should nevertheless be changed to remove all doubts.[11] Enda Kenny announced on 10 March 2015 that such a change would be made.[12] Frances Fitzgerald moved the amendment in the Dil the following day.[13]

Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan lost a case in the High Court in 2006 for the recognition by Ireland of their Canadian same-sex marriage.[14] The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 instituted civil partnership in Irish law. After the 2011 general election, the Fine Gael and Labour parties formed a coalition government, whose programme included the establishment of a Constitutional Convention to examine potential changes on specified issues, including "Provision for the legalisation of same-sex marriage". The Convention considered the issue in May 2013 and voted to recommend that the state should be required, rather than merely permitted, to allow for same-sex marriage.[15] Its report was formally submitted in July and the government formally responded in December, when Taoiseach Enda Kenny said a referendum would be held "no later than mid-2015".[16] All amendments to the Irish constitution must be approved by the people in a referendum before becoming law.

Some legal academics claimed that extending marriage to same-sex couples did not require a constitutional amendment and could have been accomplished by an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas.[17][18] Then-minister Shatter disagreed in November 2013, stating that there was "ample case law" to the effect that "marriage is understood as being between one man and one woman".[19]

In January 2015, the wording of the proposed amendment was agreed at a special cabinet meeting and published in the press, and the bill was formally introduced in the Dil by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald.[20][21]

A separate Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 was passed in April 2015. This included adoption rights for same-sex couples prior to the passing of the Act, single gay or lesbian people, or one of the partners in a same-sex couple could adopt, but joint adoption by both partners was not possible.[22] The general scheme of this bill was published for consultation in January 2014,[23] and in 2015 it was passed by the Dil on 12 March and the Seanad on 30 March.[24][25] The legislation is yet to come into force.

Simultaneous referendums were held on 22 May 2015, on the marriage bill and another constitutional amendment, to reduce the age of candidacy for the presidency.[26][27] Referendums need a simple majority of the votes cast to pass. A Dil by-election in CarlowKilkenny was held on the same day.[26]

According to the Referendum Commission, if the referendum is passed:[28]

The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015 was debated in the Dil on 10 and 11 March 2015. Several deputies from different parties spoke in favour. The only speaker to oppose it was independent TD Mattie McGrath; it was passed without a division (i.e., by voice vote). It was then debated in the Seanad on 25 and 27 March. Votes were held on a number of proposed amendments, all of which were defeated, and the Bill was finally passed by 29 votes to three. Among those speaking in favour was Katherine Zappone, now a Senator. Those who voted against were Senators Rnn Mullen, Jim Walsh and Feargal Quinn; the opposition amendments were also supported by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.[30]

All four main parties in the Dil support the bill: the governing Fine Gael and Labour, and the opposition Fianna Fil and Sinn Fin. Members of the Green Party, Anti-Austerity Alliance, People Before Profit Alliance and independents are also on record in support of the amendment.[31] "Yes Equality" is an umbrella campaign by Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN), the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Marriage Equality.[32]

Religious bodies in Ireland officially adopted stances that were either neutral or opposed to the referendum. The Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference is opposed to same-sex marriage, and has distributed a booklet to all parishes.[33][34] In February 2015, the Methodist Church in Ireland issued a statement supporting the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and woman.[35] In April 2015, a cross-denominational group issued a leaflet urging a No vote. Two bishops (one Roman Catholic and one Church of Ireland), and ministers and lay members of the Methodist, Presbyterian various Pentecostal churches signed and distributed the leaflet.[36] On 22 April 2015, the leaders of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a statement advocating a no vote, saying "the change proposed in the same-sex marriage referendum denies the rights of children and the natural responsibilities of a father and a mother in nurturing them".[37] The Iona Institute, a mainly-Catholic religious think tank, also opposed the amendment.[38]

However, in February 2015, the Church of Ireland announced that it was not taking a stance on the referendum, but was urging its members to vote according to their conscience.[39][40] Two Church of Ireland bishops called for a Yes vote. Similarly, the Islamic Centre in Ireland issued a statement on 17 April stating that "As Muslims we must believe in equality and inclusiveness. People should not be discriminated for any reason. It is important to humanise people and not to de humanise. The Islamic tradition teaches to hate the sin but not the sinner. The attitude of some Muslims towards homosexuals is incompatible with the spirit of mercy and kindness in Islam. The Irish constitution guarantees all Irish citizens the freedom of conscience and Muslims must exercise this right when voting on 22nd May 2015."[41]

A petition initiated by a number of religious groups including the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, the Irish Council of Imams, and the Galway branch of the Reformed Presbyterian Church on 15 April called for a "conscience clause", which would allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples in the provision of goods and services. In response, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said: "The Government has made its decision very clear here in respect to the question that the people will be asked on the 22nd of May. That question of course is to give their approval, if they see fit and I hope they do, to allow for marriage in civil law irrespective of sexual orientation." Brendan Howlin said "The one issue at the core of this referendum is equality under the Constitution and anything else is extraneous."[42]

However, some religious-affiliated groups were in favour of the referendum. In January 2015, the Church of Ireland LGBT group Changing Attitude Ireland welcomed the publication of the wording of the Marriage Equality Referendum. Dr Richard OLeary, the organisation's chair, said that marriage should be "available to couples without distinction as to their sex", just as civil marriage "may be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their race or religion".[39] On 7 May, at a Changing Attitude Ireland event, former Archdeacon of Dublin, Gordon Linney said "We are being given an opportunity on May 22 finally to show the gay community that we value them for who they are. We welcome them as they are fully into society and so give them the recognition they are entitled to and that those who are in stable relationships and wish to marry should be allowed to do so. Marriage is a civil contract. No church will be forced to solemnise any union it does not approve of."[43]

Many business groups advocated for the passing of the referendum. On 16 April, Business for Yes Equality launched, with high-profile companies such as Twitter, eBay, Paypal and 150 Irish-based international and local companies joining.[44][45] Stephen McIntyre, MD of Twitter in Ireland, said "As I see it, this case has three key elements. First, people perform better in the long run when they can be themselves. Second, talent is attracted to organisations which demonstrate an appreciation for diversity, inclusiveness and equality. Finally, Irelands international reputation as a good place to do business will be enhanced by a Yes vote."[46] Martin Shanahan, the head of IDA Ireland, the Industrial Development Authority, called for a Yes vote on 1 May, saying "A Yes vote on May 22 would tell the business world that Ireland is open, inclusive and welcomes diversity and that would be a very positive message to be sending internationally."[47] He also said he believed that a No vote would send a negative signal to international businesses.[48]

Also on 1 May, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions announced its support for the Yes campaign with the launch of its "Trade unions for civil marriage equality" campaign.[49] Other trade unions and staff representative associations supporting a Yes vote include the Garda Representative Association, Mandate, and Ireland's largest trade union, SIPTU.[50][51][52]

On 7 May, eBay CEO John Donahoe announced that the company was backing a Yes vote. Donahoe said that its position on equality issues such as same-sex marriage, in addition to being "the right thing to do", also helps the company attract, retain and develop the right people.[53]

Other prominent groups to support the referendum included a coalition of Ireland's main children's charities called "BeLonG To Yes". Constituent organisations include the ISPCC, Barnardo's, Forige, Youth Work Ireland, the Migrant Rights Centre, Headstrong, Yes Equality, the Children's Rights Alliance, Pavee Point, EPIC and the National Youth Council of Ireland. Speaking at the launch, Fergus Finlay said they had come together to call for a Yes vote in part because groups within the No campaign were "using children as pawns" and that every time he saw a poster calling for a No vote because "every child deserves a mother and father", he saw "a sickening insult to the thousands of lone parents and children who love and care for each other in Ireland. The message is exploitative, hurtful and dishonest. What every child deserves is love, respect, safety. That can come from two parents of either sex, two parents of the same-sex, or a single parent."[54][55] The Union of Students in Ireland launched its "Students for Marriage Equality" campaign in January together with its dedicated website, voteforlove.ie.[56]

Amnesty International launched their 'Lets Make History'[57] campaign for marriage equality on 22 March 2015 to thousands of people outside the historic General Post Office, Dublin.[58] Speakers included Colm O'Gorman, Pat Carey, Sabina Brennan, Gavin Brennan and Grace Dyas.

On 5 May, the "Yes for Health" campaign was launched by Liam Doran, general secretary of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation and Kieran Ryan, CEO of the Irish College of General Practitioners. Speaking at the launch, Minister for Health Leo Varadkar said that a No vote would be a "big step backwards" for the country, and that it would have an adverse effect on the mental health of members of the LGBT community.[59] The following day, the National Women's Council of Ireland and launched their 'Yes' campaign. The launch was attended by representatives of various groups, including the Irish Feminist Network, Digi Women and the Association of Childcare Professionals.[60] On 7 May, the Law Society of Ireland announced its support for a Yes vote. Ken Murphy, the society's Director General, said that the society was taking a public stance because marriage equality was an issue of fundamental human rights. The decision followed a report from the society's human rights committee, which found that there there were 160 ways in which civil partnership, compared to civil marriage, was the lesser of the two unions.[61]

Some groups were also formed in opposition to the referendum. On 18 April, Mothers and Fathers Matter, formed in 2014 to oppose the Children and Family Relationships Bill, launched its No campaign.[62][63] First Families First, a group of three people headed by children's and disabilities campaigner Kathy Sinnott, and fathers rights campaigner John Waters launched its campaign for a No vote on 1 May.[64] On 7 May, a new group called StandUp4Marriage launched. Its founder, Senator Jim Walsh said the launch was sparsely attended because people who want to vote no are afraid to speak out.[43]

The following organisations registered as "approved bodies" to monitor postal voting and vote counting: Comhar Crosta, Marriage Equality, Yes Equality Cork, Green Party, Mothers & Fathers Matter, Fianna Fil, Labour Party, BeLonG to Youth Services, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, GLEN Campaign for Marriage, National LGBT Federation, Sinn Fin, and Fine Gael.[65][66][67]

A 2014 poll showed that support was strongest among younger voters, and that Sinn Fin and Labour voters were somewhat more in favour than Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.[84][78][82]

Counting began at 09:00 IST on 23 May (08:00 UTC). Early tallies quickly began to indicate a victory for the Yes campaign, with Minister for State Aodhn Rordin declaring a "landslide" victory across Dublin only 8 minutes into counting.[88] Key figures in the No campaign, including David Quinn began conceeding defeat as early as 10:00, long ahead of any constituencies declaring their final count.[89]

Urban regions generally recorded higher approval ratings for the change. The highest Yes percentages were recorded in the Dublin Region with the all of the top ten by Yes vote percentage being in the region (with a total yes vote of 71% for the region), and all of the top 15 located in the Greater Dublin Area. Cork's urban constituencies also ranked above the national average, as did Limerick city. Although the Donegal constituencies had been expected to return a No vote,[90] and indeed, of all constituencies reporting a majority Yes vote, the lowest margin was recorded in Donegal South-West where a Yes vote was carried by a margin of only 33 votes Roscommon-South Leitrim was the only constituency to return a majority No vote.

The national results were as follows:[1][91]

72.5%75%

70%72.49%

67.5%69.99%

65%67.49%

62.5%64.99%

60%62.49%

57.5%59.99%

55%57.49%

52.5%54.99%

50%52.49%

48.58%

Dublin Castle, where the result of referendum was officially announced, was opened to the public for the duration of the count, with numbers limited to 2,000 at any one time. A carnival atmosphere prevailed all day after early count tallies indicated that the result would be a Yes. Celebrations and street parties took place at many venues in cities around Ireland, with Dublin celebrations centred between gay venues Pantibar and The George, and Dublin Castle.[93]

Taoiseach Enda Kenny said "With today's Yes vote we have disclosed who we are a generous, compassionate, bold and joyful people. The referendum was about inclusiveness and equality, about love and commitment being enshrined in the constitution. The people have spoken. They have said yes. Ireland thank you."[94]

Tnaiste Joan Burton described Ireland as a "rainbow nation" and said "In Ireland, we are known as a nation of storytellers and today, the people have told quite some story. Together, the people of Ireland have struck a massive blow against discrimination as we extend the right of marriage to all our citizens." Leo Varadkar, Minister for Health and Ireland's first openly gay cabinet minister, said "It is a historic day for Ireland. We are the first country in the world to enshrine marriage equality in our constitution and to do it through popular mandate. That makes us a beacon of equality and liberty to the rest of the world, so it's a very proud day for the Irish people."[94]

Michel Martin, Fianna Fil leader and Leader of the Opposition (but a supporter of the Yes side, like almost all the Government and Opposition deputies in Dil ireann), said "there is something in the DNA of Irish people that reacts to inequality", adding "It is something that Irish people do not accept historically and I believe this ballot is a vote in favour of a more inclusive, equal and just society."[95] However, Senator Averil Power resigned from Fianna Fil after the referendum, alleging that many of its TDs and Senators had refused to canvass or leaflet for a Yes vote, and that its low profile in the Yes campaign was "cynical and cowardly".[96][97]

The leader of Sinn Fin, Gerry Adams, said "We have a new era of equality and that is a good day for Ireland."[94]

Veteran gay and civil rights campaigner, Senator David Norris, who was one of the key figures in having homosexuality decriminalised, said "I think it's wonderful. It's a little bit late for me. As I said the other day, Ive spent so much time pushing the boat out that I forgot to jump on and now it's out beyond the harbour on the high seas, but it's very nice to look at."[98]

Katherine Zappone, the first openly lesbian member of the Oireachtas, proposed remarrying her wife on air.[99]

Diarmuid Martin, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin told RT that the church needed a "reality check." He said "I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution." He added "I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I'm saying there's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church"[100]

The Church of Ireland issued a statement indicating that it "defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and the result of this referendum does not alter this." The Archbishops and bishops also called for "a spirit of public generosity, both from those for whom the result of the referendum represents triumph, and from those for whom it signifies disaster"[101][102]

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland said it was "deeply disappointed and saddened that the Constitution will no longer reflect the historic and Christian view of marriage that it is exclusively between one man and one woman."[103]

Under the Referendum Act 1994, the returning officer issued a provisional certificate of the referendum result to the Master of the High Court and published a notice in Iris Oifigiil, the official gazette.[1][119][120] Citizens have seven days in which to lodge a petition challenging the result.[121][120] If no petition is upheld, the provisional certificate is certified as final by the Master of the High Court and the bill is sent to the President of Ireland to be signed into law, thereby amending the constitution.[122][120] Two petitions against the marriage referendum were rejected in the High Court in June and the Court of Appeal in July, after which the bill was signed by President Michael D. Higgins on 29 August 2015.[5][123]

Two separate petitions were lodged within the time limit and considered in the High Court on 5 June 2015.[124] The petitioners, Gerry Walshe and Maurice J. Lyons, were lay litigants.[125] Walsh argued that political parties receiving state funding should have been prohibited from campaigning; that copies of the amendment should have been available at post offices; and that the secrecy of the ballot was compromised by serial numbers on ballot papers and CCTV cameras in some polling stations.[125] Lyons argued that the amendment is too vaguely worded and incompatible with the constitution's Christian ethos and reference to "woman ... in the home"; and also that non-voters should have been counted as no-voters.[126]Nicholas Kearns, President of the High Court, dismissed both applications and awarded costs against the petitioners.[127][126] Walshe and Lyons appealed the decisions, and on 29 June the Court of Appeal scheduled hearings for 30 July.[128][129][130][131] On 30 July the court upheld the dismissals and the costs awards against both petitioners.[6] The remaining steps were as prescribed by the Referendum Act 1994: on 24 August the High Court's Master formally notified the referendum returning officer Rona N Fhlanghaile that it had not accepted any petition; on 28 August N Fhlanghaile sent the final referendum certificate to the Taoiseach and President; on 29 August the President signing the amendment into law.[132][133][123]

Meanwhile, on 27 August, both Walshe and Lyons applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, although neither sought a stay on the Master or returning officer's actions, and their applications did not prevent the bill being signed into law.[132] On 16 September, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, stating neither applicant had raised any points of substance.[134] The Supreme Court criticised the decision to finalise the referendum certificate before it had made its decision; however, the High Court on 23 September rejected a claim by Walshe that the certificate was therefore invalid.[133][135] The President's office and the Department of the Environment also stated they had acted in accordance with the law.[123] The Master of the High Court said the problem arose because the Referendum Act 1994 did not take account of the Court of Appeal, created in 2014 under the Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution.[132]

In March 2015, the Department of Justice published the general scheme of the Marriage Bill 2015, setting out the changes to be made to marriage law if the proposed amendment is enacted. These include removing the current legislative bar on same-sex couples marrying,[136] allowing foreign same-sex marriages to be registered in Ireland as marriages rather than as civil partnerships,[137] and dissolving a civil partnership if the partners marry each other.[138] Authorised solemnisers of marriage from religious groups would be allowed to refuse to officiate at same-sex ceremonies.[139][140] Lawyer Benedict Floinn felt the bill's drafting should have been completed before the referendum, to minimise the lacuna during which statute law is out of step with the constitution.[141] The Gender Recognition Act 2015 requires a transgender person to be unmarried to recognise a change of legal sex;[142] the Marriage Bill intends to remove this restriction.[143][144]

The government hoped to have the Marriage Bill enacted before the Oireachtas' summer adjournment, but the referendum petition hearings in the Court of Appeal delayed this.[128][129][145] The government intends to enact the Marriage Bill "as early as possible" after the Dil's resumption on 22 September 2015.[146] The bill provides that applications for civil partnership pending when it comes into force can be converted into applications for marriage.[147][146][148] The Minister for Justice expects marriages under this provision to take place by November.[148][149] The bill was approved at a cabinet meeting on 16 September for publication the following day.[150]

Here is the original post:
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland ...

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

Fourth Amendment – National Constitution Center

Posted: September 30, 2015 at 7:43 pm

The Fourth Amendment

Imagine youre driving a car, and a police officer spots you and pulls you over for speeding. He orders you out of the car. Maybe he wants to place you under arrest. Or maybe he wants to search your car for evidence of a crime. Can the officer do that?

The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that gives the answer. According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes.

The Fourth Amendment has been debated frequently during the last several years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. The federal government has conducted bulk collection of Americans telephone and Internet connections as part of the War on Terror. Many municipal police forces have engaged in aggressive use of stop and frisk. There have been a number of highly-publicized police-citizen encounters in which the police ended up shooting a civilian. There is also concern about the use of aerial surveillance, whether by piloted aircraft or drones.

The application of the Fourth Amendment to all these activities would have surprised those who drafted it, and not only because they could not imagine the modern technologies like the Internet and drones. They also were not familiar with organized police forces like we have today. Policing in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a responsibility of the citizenry, which participated in night watches. Other than that, there was only a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today.

The primary concerns of the generation that ratified the Fourth Amendment were general warrants and writs of assistance. Famous incidents on both sides of the Atlantic gave rise to placing the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. In Britain, the Crown employed general warrants to go after political enemies, leading to the famous decisions in Wilkes v. Wood (1763) and Entick v. Carrington (1765). General warrants allowed the Crowns messengers to search without any cause to believe someone had committed an offense. In those cases the judges decided that such warrants violated English common law. In the colonies the Crown used the writs of assistancelike general warrants, but often unbounded by time restraintsto search for goods on which taxes had not been paid. James Otis challenged the writs in a Boston court; though he lost, some such as John Adams attribute this legal battle as the spark that led to the Revolution. Both controversies led to the famous notion that a persons home is their castle, not easily invaded by the government.

Today the Fourth Amendment is understood as placing restraints on the government any time it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property. The Fourth Amendment also provides that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The idea is that to avoid the evils of general warrants, each search or seizure should be cleared in advance by a judge, and that to get a warrant the government must show probable causea certain level of suspicion of criminal activityto justify the search or seizure.

To the extent that a warrant is required in theory before police can search, there are so many exceptions that in practice warrants rarely are obtained. Police can search automobiles without warrants, they can detain people on the street without them, and they can always search or seize in an emergency without going to a judge.

The way that the Fourth Amendment most commonly is put into practice is in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court decided in the mid-twentieth century that if the police seize evidence as part of an illegal search, the evidence cannot be admitted into court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It is controversial because in most cases evidence is being tossed out even though it shows the person is guilty and, as a result of the police conduct, they might avoid conviction. The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered, declared Benjamin Cardozo (a famous judge and ultimately Supreme Court justice). But, responded another Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.

One of the difficult questions today is what constitutes a search? If the police standing in Times Square in New York watched a person planting a bomb in plain daylight, we would not think they needed a warrant or any cause. But what about installing closed circuit TV cameras on poles, or flying drones over backyards, or gathering evidence that you have given to a third party such as an Internet provider or a banker?

Another hard question is when a search is acceptable when the government has no suspicion that a person has done something wrong. Lest the answer seem to be never, think of airport security. Surely it is okay for the government to screen people getting on airplanes, yet the idea is as much to deter people from bringing weapons as it is to catch themthere is no cause, probable or otherwise, to think anyone has done anything wrong. This is the same sort of issue with bulk data collection, and possibly with gathering biometric information.

What should be clear by now is that advancing technology and the many threats that face society add up to a brew in which the Fourth Amendment will continue to play a central role.

In the Supreme Courts decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment, there are a lot of cross-cutting arguments.

The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.

What the Fourth Amendment Fundamentally Requires by Barry Friedman

In the Supreme Courts decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment, there are a lot of cross-cutting arguments.

For example, sometimes the Justices say that there is a strong preference for government agents to obtain warrants, and that searches without warrants are presumptively invalid. At other times they say warrants are unnecessary, and the only requirement is that searches be reasonable. At times the Justices say probable cause is required to support a search; at others they say probable cause is not an irreducible minimum.

This is your Fourth Amendment. It describes [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is important for each American to focus on some basics and decideseparate and apart from what the Justices saywhat this vital amendment means.

People say that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, but that trivializes it. In this world you give up a lot of privacy, whether you wish to or not. Internet cookies, or data stored in web browsers, are just one example. But the Internet companies are not going to come take you away. The government might. What the Fourth Amendment protects is the right of the people to be secure. The Fourth Amendment is the means of keeping the government out of our lives and our property unless it has good justification.

In evaluating how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, it is essential to bear in mind the vast changes in policing since the time it was ratified. Whereas policing once was reactive, tasked with identifying and catching criminals, today it has become proactive and is based in deterrence. Before, policing was mostly based on suspicion, it was aimed at people for whom there was cause to believe they had violated or were about to violate the law. Today, policing is aimed at all of usfrom red light cameras to bulk data collection by intelligence agencies to airport security.

There are some basic principles that should govern searches and seizures.

First, no member of the Executive branch should be permitted to intervene in our lives without the say-so of at least one other branch. This is fundamental, and all the more important when that Executive actor engages in surveillance of the citizenry and can use force and coercion against them.

Second, a central purpose of the Fourth Amendment is preventing arbitrary or unjustified intrusions into the lives and property of citizens.

In light of these basic principles, certain interpretations of the Fourth Amendment follow:

No search or seizure is reasonable if it is not based on either legislative authorization or pursuant to rules that have some form of democratic say in their making. The police can write rulesall other agencies of executive government dobut absent a critical need for secrecy those rules should be public and responsive to public wishes.

Second, warrants are to be preferred. Policing agencies are mission-oriented. We want them to bethey have a vital role protecting public safety. But because they are mission-oriented, warrants should be obtained in advance of searching whenever possible so that a neutral judge can assess the need to intrude on peoples lives.

Third, we should distinguish between searches aimed at suspects and those aimed at society in general. When there is a particular suspect, the protections of a warrant and probable cause apply. But those protections make no sense when we are all the target of policing. In the latter instance the most important protection is that policing not discriminate among us. For example, at airport security all must be screened the same unless and until there is suspicioncause to single someone out.

Finally, often todays policing singles out a particular group. Examples include profiling (based on race, religion, or something else) or subjecting only workers in some agencies to drug tests. When policing is group-based, the proper clause of the Constitution to govern is the Equal Protection Clause. When discriminatory searching or seizing occurs, the government should have to prove two things: that the group it is selecting for unfavorable treatment truly is more likely to contain people worthy of the governments attention, and that the incidence of problematic behavior is sufficiently great in that group to justify burdening everyone. Otherwise, the government should go back to either searching individuals based on suspicion, or search us all.

The Future of the Fourth Amendment by Orin Kerr

The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.

The Fourth Amendment was written over two hundred years ago. But todays crimes often involve computers and the Internet, requiring the police to collect digital evidence and analyze it to solve crimes.

The major question is, how much power should the police have to collect this data? What is an unreasonable search and seizure on the Internet?

Consider the example of a Facebook account. If you log in to Facebook, your use of the account sends a tremendous amount of information to Facebook. Facebook keeps records of everything. What you post, what messages you send, what pictures you like, even what pages you view. Facebook gets it all, and it keeps records of everything you do. Now imagine that the police come to Facebook and want records of a particular user. The police think the suspect used Facebook to commit the crime or shared evidence of the crime using the site. Maybe the suspect was cyberstalking and harassing a victim on Facebook. Or maybe the suspect is a drug dealer who was exchanging messages with another drug dealer planning a future crime. Or perhaps the suspect committed a burglary, and he posted pictures of the burglary for all of his Facebook friends to see.

Heres the hard question: What limits does the Fourth Amendment impose on the government getting access to the account records? For example, is it a Fourth Amendment search or seizure for the government to get what a person posted on his Facebook wall for all of his friends to see? Is it a search or seizure to get the messages that the suspect sent? How about records of what page the suspect viewed? And if it is a search or seizure, how much can the government seize with a warrant? Can the government get access to all of the account records? Only some of the account records?

The courts have only begun to answer these questions, and it will be up to future courts to figure out what the Fourth Amendment requires. As more people spend much of their lives online, the stakes of answering these questions correctly becomes higher and higher.

In my view, courts should try to answer these questions by translating the traditional protections of the Fourth Amendment from the physical world to the networked world. In the physical world, the Fourth Amendment strikes a balance. The government is free to do many things without constitutional oversight. The police can watch people in the public street or watch a suspect in a public place. They can follow a car as it drives down the street. On the other hand, the police need cause to stop people, and they need a warrant to enter private places like private homes.

The goal for interpreting the Fourth Amendment should be to strike that same balance in the online setting. Just like in the physical world, the police should be able to collect some evidence without restriction to ensure that they can investigate crimes. And just like in the physical world, there should be limits on what the government can do to ensure that the police do not infringe upon important civil liberties.

A second important area is the future of the exclusionary rule, the rule that evidence unconstitutionally obtained cannot be used in court. The history of the exclusionary rule is a history of change. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the exclusionary rule. Since the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court has cut back on when the exclusionary rule applies.

The major disagreement is over whether and how the exclusionary rule should apply when the police violate the Fourth Amendment, but do so in good faith, such as when the law is unclear or the violation is only technical. In the last decade, a majority of the Justices have expanded the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. A central question is whether the good faith exception will continue to expand, and if so, how far.

In the Supreme Courts decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment, there are a lot of cross-cutting arguments.

The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.

Link:
Fourth Amendment - National Constitution Center

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

“Search and Seizure” and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw

Posted: July 24, 2015 at 8:09 pm

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property -- whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.

What Does the Fourth Amendment Protect?

In the criminal law realm, Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" protections extend to:

The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.

When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?

The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:

Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement's legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:

What if My Fourth Amendment Rights Are Violated?

When law enforcement officers violate an individual's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, and a search or seizure is deemed unlawful, any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated. For example:

Visit link:
"Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment - FindLaw

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

Fourth Amendment – the Text, Origins, and Meaning

Posted: at 8:09 pm

Yellow Dog Productions/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Text of Amendment:

Writs of Assistance:

The Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official.

These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all. Since many of the founding fathers were smugglers, this was an especially unpopular concept in the colonies.

Limited Power:

In practical terms, there is no means by which the government can exercise prior restraint on law enforcement officials. If an officer in Jackson, Mississippi wants to conduct a warrantless search without probable cause, the judiciary is not present at the time and can't prevent the search. This meant that the Fourth Amendment had little power or relevance until 1914.

The Exclusionary Rule:

In Weeks v. United States (1914), the Supreme Court established what has been known as the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is inadmissible in court and cannot be used as part of the prosecution's case. Before Weeks, law enforcement officials could violate the Fourth Amendment without being punished for it, secure the evidence, and use it at trial.

The exclusionary rule establishes consequences for violating a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.

The rest is here:
Fourth Amendment - the Text, Origins, and Meaning

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

Government Explains Away Fourth Amendment Protection for …

Posted: June 9, 2015 at 12:42 am

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their private digital communications such as email, and therefore the Fourth Amendment protects those communications. It's a simple extension of the Supreme Courts seminal 1967 ruling in Katz v. United States that the Fourth Amendment protected a telephone conversation held in a closed phone booth. But in a brief recently filed in a criminal terrorism case arising from surveillance of a United States citizen, the government needs only a few sentences to argue this basic protection doesnt apply, with potentially dramatic consequences for the rest of us.

United States v. Mohamud

Mohamed Mohamud is a Somalia-born naturalized U.S. citizen who was convicted in 2012 of plotting to detonate a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. Shortly after he was arrested, he was given notice by the government that it had used evidence obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) against him.

But it wasnt until after Mohamud was convicted and just a few weeks before he was to be sentenced that the government belatedly gave him notice for the first time that it had also used evidence derived under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). The government continues to withhold the details of the FAA surveillance, forcing Mohamud (and other defendants receiving delayed FAA notice) to raise generalized challenges to the constitutionality of the FAA based only on what is publicly known about Section 702 surveillance. Mohamud did exactly that in April, raising several legal challenges to the FAA and arguing he should receive a new trial.

The Governments Talking to a Foreigner Exception to the Fourth Amendment

While theres a lot unknown about Section 702 surveillance, we do know it authorizes the targeting of foreigners even when this targeting results in the incidental collection of constitutionally protected Americans communications. As a result, the government can acquire the contents of Americans e-mails, VOIP calls, chat sessions, and more when they communicate with people outside the US.

In its recently filed response to Mohamuds motion to suppress and for new trial, the government concedes for the sake of argument that an American whose communications are incidentally collected as part of Section 702 surveillance has constitutional interests at stake. So far so good; these constitutional interests are in fact at the core of what the Supreme Court describes as the Fourth Amendments protection of the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. But then the government dismisses this fundamental protection with one staggeringly broad passage:

The Supreme Court has long held that when one person voluntarily discloses information to another, the first person loses any cognizable interest under the Fourth Amendment in what the second person does with the information. . . . For Fourth Amendment purposes, the same principle applies whether the recipient intentionally makes the information public or stores it in a place subject to a government search. Thus, once a non-U.S. person located outside the United States receives information, the sender loses any cognizable Fourth Amendment rights with respect to that information. That is true even if the sender is a U.S. person protected by the Fourth Amendment, because he assumes the risk that the foreign recipient will give the information to others, leave the information freely accessible to others, or that the U.S. government (or a foreign government) will obtain the information.

It is true that individuals assume the risk that the people they communicate with will turn over a recording to the government. So, for example, in the cases the government cites in the passage above, United States v. White and Hoffa v. United States, the Supreme Court found there is no Fourth Amendment violation if you have a private conversation with someone who happens to be a government informant and repeats what you said to the government or even surreptitiously records it. In those instances, individuals misplaced confidence that people they are communicating with wont divulge their secrets is not enough to create a Fourth Amendment interest.

But the government stretches these cases far beyond their limits, arguing that its own incidental collection of an Americans communications while targeting a foreigner is the same as having that person repeat what the American said to the government directly, even though it is the government that is eavesdropping on the conversation. In essence, when you communicate with someone whose communications are being targeted under the FAA, you have no Fourth Amendment rights. Under this reasoning, any time you send an email to someone in another country, you assume the risk that your intended recipient may be a foreigner and that the government can obtain the contents of the email without a warrant.

See more here:
Government Explains Away Fourth Amendment Protection for ...

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off

Page 212

Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

N.D.Ill.: Withheld video of CPD shooting revealed during …

Fourth Amendment – Kids | Laws.com

Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution …

Fourth Amendment.com

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland …

Fourth Amendment – National Constitution Center

“Search and Seizure” and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw

Fourth Amendment – the Text, Origins, and Meaning

Government Explains Away Fourth Amendment Protection for …

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution