The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlines the legal principle that people are protected “against unreasonable searches and seizures...and no Warrants shall [be] issue[d], but upon probable cause.” Prior to the Civil War, the protections from illegal search and seizures were only limited to actions of the federal government. Most notably, the Fourth Amendment originally gave birth to the exclusionary rule, which barred the use of evidence unconstitutionally seized by federal law enforcement officers. It was not until the landmark decision of Mapp v. Ohio, that the exclusionary rule was incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violations and made binding on the State. The court in Mapp held that all evidence obtained by illegal search and seizures was inadmissible in State courts.Most cases dealing with criminal procedure violations deal with Fourth Amendment violations pertaining to illegal searches or seizures. In order for the Fourth Amendment protections to apply, two elements need to be met: (1) there needs to have been an “unreasonable” search or seizure; and (2) there needs to have been “government action.” Courts generally use several factors to determine if a search was “reasonable” such as: assumption of risk, location, vantage point, legality of activities, and reduced expectation of privacy. The case of Katz v. United States outlines the requirements for something to be considered a “search” that warrants Fourth Amendment protections. Generally, if a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” that was violated by a government actor (e.g. law enforcement officer), then it constitutes an illegal search. As previously mentioned, the second element necessitating “government action,” generally refers to any situation involving a government agent. This refers to people employed by the government, such as police officers or even public school teachers. A “seizure” occurs when there is a meaningful interference with a person’s possession of a property interest. Law enforcement officials are legally permitted to seize objects in which they have probable cause to believe is criminal evidence.
Once you have determined there was an illegal search or seizure, the final determination focuses on whether you have standing to contest the legality of the search of seizure at trial. For a defendant to have standing to argue a Fourth Amendment violation, he must have: (1) a legitimate expectation of privacy in the placed searched; or (2) a possessory interest in the items seized, and (3) the ability to exclude others and exercise dominion or control over the place or items seized. According to Rakas v. Illinois, a mere passenger in a car, without more, does not have standing to contest the search of a car that resulted in the discover of an illegal shotgun and ammunition. The general rules of thumb in contesting home searches is that an overnight guest has standing to contest an illegal search, but an individual who is present in a home for a mere business purpose does not have standing to contest the search. See Minnesota v. Olson; Minnesota v. Carter.
