Birchfield v. North Dakota

The Court held that a geofence warrant is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment, reaffirming and expanding its earlier holding on warrantless access to historical cell site location information.· AI-written

The Court addressed whether police may enter a home without a warrant under the emergency aid exception based on a reasonable belief someone needs help, and held that an objectively reasonable basis suffices, which the officers' entry satisfied.· AI-written

The Court, in a unanimous decision, reaffirmed the "totality of the circumstances" test for Fourth Amendment excessive force claims and rejected the "moment of the threat" test used by some Circuit Courts as excessively narrow.· AI-written

The Court ruled unanimously that the warrantless entry into a home by police in pursuit of a misdemeanant is not unequivocally justified.

The Court ruled in a 5–3 decision that the use of physical force with the intent to restrain a person, even if that fails to restrain the person, is considered a seizure.

The Court held that, when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant.

The Court held that government entities violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

The court held that because the wiretap orders did not lack any information that the statute required them to include and would have been sufficient absent the superfluous language authorizing interception outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, the orders were not facially insufficient.

The Court held, in a case over a U.S. Border Patrol agent's shooting of a Mexican teenager across the border, that the Bivens precedent did not extend to claims based on cross-border shootings.· AI-written

The Court limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.· AI-written

The Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a 90-day period, is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.

The court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court held that when an objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes, such as a lawful arrest, the remaining resident may validly consent to a search of the dwelling.· AI-written

The Court held that a buccal swab to harvest an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and, therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

The Court ruled that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.

The Court, addressing whether a drug-detection dog's training or certification suffices to establish probable cause for a vehicle search, unanimously held that certification by a bona fide organization after reliability testing in a controlled setting supports such reliability.· AI-written

A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched.

The court held that officials may strip-search people who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the people to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the person is carrying contraband.

The Court held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

The court decided that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later found to be incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency.

Addresses use of evidence obtained by police in a search incident to an arrest if that arrest is later found to be unlawful.

The Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.

The Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce requirement for police entering a private residence does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.· AI-written

The Court ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is or is about to be seriously injured.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.

The Court ruled that anticipatory search warrants, issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment and need not describe that condition on their face.· AI-written

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows detention of an occupant in handcuffs while a search is being conducted, and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.

The Court ruled that even if an officer wrongly arrests a suspect for one crime, the arrest may still be "reasonable" if there is objectively probable cause to believe that the suspect is involved in a different crime.

The Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if it first required reasonable suspicion, nor the Fifth Amendment absent any allegation that the name could incriminate.· AI-written

In a case over a drug interdiction search on a Greyhound bus, the Court held that officers need not advise passengers of their right to refuse consent, and that the search was reasonable because the passengers voluntarily consented.· AI-written

The Court unanimously reaffirmed that the Fourth Amendment required courts to judge the reasonableness of a traffic stop by the totality of the circumstances rather than examining each of an officer's reasons for the stop individually.· AI-written

The court held that the police search of a probationer supported by reasonable suspicion and pursuant to a probation condition satisfied the requirements under the Fourth Amendment.

The court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.

The Court found Medical University of South Carolina's policy regarding involuntary drug testing of pregnant women to violate the Fourth Amendment.

In a case about the government's power to limit a person's control of their home pending a search warrant, the Court held the search was not unconstitutional because police reasonably needed to prevent destruction of evidence.· AI-written

The Court applied the ruling of Minnesota v. Dickerson to luggage, which held that police may not physically manipulate items without a warrant without violating the Fourth Amendment.

The Court determined that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk someone based solely on an anonymous tip that describes a person's location and appearance, but does not furnish information as to any illegal conduct.

Unanimously held the entrance of a third-party not directly involved in aiding a search warrant into a private household unconstitutional.

The Court held that property damage during a no-knock warrant is irrelevant as long as law enforcement has reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be a dangerous move.

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not allow a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule for investigations of drug-related felonies.

The Court held that appellate courts should review probable cause determinations for warrantless searches de novo.

The Court held that the traditional, common-law-derived "knock and announce" rule for executing search warrants must be incorporated into the "reasonableness" analysis of whether the actual execution of the warrant is/was justified under the 4th Amendment.

The Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.

The Court held that a seizure of property like that which occurs during an eviction, even absent a search or an arrest, implicates the Fourth Amendment.

The Court held that a fleeing suspect is not "seized" under the terms of the Fourth Amendment unless the pursuing officers apply physical force to the suspect or the suspect submits to officers' demands to halt.

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view.

In a 7–2 decision, the court held that a person staying as a guest in the house of another had a legal expectation of privacy, and that a warrantless entry into that house to arrest the person tainted the arrest and the individual's subsequent statements.

The Court ruled that a confession given at the police station was admissible, even though the suspect had been arrested illegally in his home without a warrant, because it was made outside the home after Miranda warnings.· AI-written

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment permitted a properly limited protective sweep during an in-home arrest when the officer reasonably believed, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area harbored a person posing a danger to those at the scene.· AI-written

The Court determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.

The Court forbade prosecutors from using evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to impeach statements made by a defense witness.· AI-written

The majority of the Court upheld the drug testing program in the United States Customs Service.

The Court held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.

The Court ruled that when officers conduct an unlawful search followed by a lawful one, evidence seized in the second search is admissible if that search is genuinely independent of the earlier one.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

The court decided that the warrantless search of a probationer's residence based on "reasonable grounds" in accordance with a state probation regulation did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Court, in a case over a search of a state hospital doctor's office during a workplace misconduct investigation, ruled that public employees retain their Fourth Amendment rights.· AI-written

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the police to have probable cause before they can seize items in plain view.

The Court held that where police reasonably believe their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights.

The Court held that aerial observation of a person's backyard by police, even if done without a search warrant, does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The court ruled that the purchase of the magazines was not a seizure, and Macon was found guilty of the sale of obscene materials.

The Court held that under the Fourth Amendment, an officer pursuing a fleeing suspect may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless there is probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.· AI-written

The Court held that compelled surgical intrusion into a person's body to obtain evidence implicates privacy and security expectations so greatly that it would be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even if it would likely produce evidence of a crime.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States clarified how long police are permitted to stop vehicles as part of an investigatory stop before it violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In a case about a school official's search of a student's purse after she was caught smoking, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies in schools but requires only reasonable suspicion, and ruled the search constitutional.· AI-written

The Court ruled that wanted posters create reasonable suspicion to detain and identify suspects that match descriptions contained in those posters.

The Court established a "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.· AI-written

The Court held that use of an electronic beeper device to monitor a can of ether without a warrant constituted an unlawful search.

The Court held that prison inmates have no privacy rights in their cells protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court determined that a warrantless arrest in a person's home without exigent circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure.· AI-written

The Court held that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for a trained police dog to sniff a person's luggage or property in a public place.

In a Fourth Amendment case about probable cause, the Court overruled two earlier decisions and replaced the Aguilar–Spinelli test with a "totality of the circumstances" test.· AI-written

In a Fourth Amendment case about warrantless searches and seizures, the Court ruled that police may approach a person based on their behavior but, absent more, cannot detain or search that person without a warrant.· AI-written

The Court held that using a beeper to help officers follow a car on a single trip violated no legitimate expectation of privacy, so it was no search or seizure and needed no warrant under the Fourth Amendment.· AI-written

The Court held that it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an arresting officer to accompany the arrested at all times, regardless of where they go.

The Court held for Fourth Amendment purposes, a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.

It was held that, based on the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not conduct a warrantless search of a third party's home in an attempt to apprehend the subject of an arrest warrant, absent consent or exigent circumstances.

The Court ruled that "automatic standing" to bring a Fourth Amendment claim based merely on possession of a seized item lacks constitutional merit.· AI-written

The Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion.

The Court determined "seizure" occurs when an officer uses displays of authority to detain a person.

The Court struck down a New York statute allowing warrantless entry into a private home to make a felony arrest, because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the house's entrance absent exigent circumstances.· AI-written

The Court ruled that a warrant could not be used to search an unnamed individual unless the warrant mentioned that unnamed parties were involved or exigent circumstances were shown to exist.· AI-written

The Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas for a refusal to identify himself after being seen and questioned in a high-crime area was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Court held that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required.

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico.

The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.

The Court ruled against a student newspaper that claimed a police search warrant for its photographs of a hospital demonstration violated the First and Fourth Amendments and should have been a subpoena.· AI-written

The Court held that firefighters can not enter a burned premises (in this case, a furniture store) to retrieve evidence of arson barring a search warrant, evidence of exigent circumstances, evidence of abandonment, or consent.

The Court held the search of letters or envelopes from foreign countries falls under the border exception to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Court found Max Janis and Morris Levine guilty of illegal bookmaking activities in Los Angeles in a 5-3 ruling.

The Court held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to detain an individual for an extended period of time without a probable cause hearing by a neutral magistrate.

The Court held that the Bank Secrecy Act, which required banks to record transactions and report certain high-dollar domestic and foreign transactions to the Treasury, did not violate the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments.· AI-written

The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched.

The Court upheld a murder conviction notwithstanding a challenge that the evidence upon which guilt was based was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.· AI-written

The Court held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

The Court held that a search of a suspect's house is not "incident to the arrest" when the suspect's arrest took place outside.

The court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant.

By a 6–3 margin the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of a district court denial of the petition.

The Court ruled that police may constitutionally stop and frisk a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime, without probable cause, without violating the Fourth Amendment, if reasonable suspicion rests on specific and articulable facts.· AI-written

The Court redefined what counts as a "search" or "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, expanding its protections beyond persons, houses, papers, and effects to any area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.· AI-written

The Court invalidated a New York law under the Fourth Amendment because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.· AI-written

The Court overruled a previous case (Frank v. Maryland, 1959) and established the ability of a commercial entity to deny entry to a fire inspector without a warrant or probable cause.

The Court overruled a previous case (Frank v. Maryland, 1959) and established the ability of a resident to deny entry to a building inspector without a warrant.

The Court held that the use of an undercover federal narcotics agent with a false identity did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he entered the petitioner's home by invitation to purchase marijuana.

The Court stated that the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure rules applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and that warrants to seize books must follow the Fourth Amendment's language with "most scrupulous exactitude."· AI-written

The Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court, holding that the record did not show probable cause for a warrantless arrest, so evidence found in the search incident to that arrest was inadmissible and the conviction was vacated.· AI-written

The Court held that a search warrant affidavit may rest on hearsay, but the magistrate must be told the underlying circumstances relied on by the informant and those supporting the conclusion that the undisclosed informant was credible or reliable.· AI-written

The Court extended the situations in which search warrants are required and reversed a robbery conviction that rested on evidence from a hotel room searched with only the desk clerk's permission.· AI-written

The Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure, applying them to the states.· AI-written

The Court excluded verbal evidence and recovered narcotics from presentation because both were fruits of an illegal entry.· AI-written

The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler.

The Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which bars prosecutors from using evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, also applies to the states.· AI-written

The Court unanimously held that a federal officer may not, without warrant, physically place themselves into the space of a person's office or home to secretly observe or listen and relate at the man's subsequent criminal trial what was seen or heard.

The Court held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court ruled in favor of health inspectors who sought to enter a man's home to check for a rat infestation, reasoning that the search would benefit the public more than it intruded on his privacy interests.· AI-written

The Court held that one could not lawfully be arrested in one's home by officers breaking in without first giving one notice of their authority and purpose.

The Court ruled that involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Court held that warrantless searches immediately following an arrest are constitutional.

The Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Court ruled that warrantless searches following arrests were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.