---
title: The Fourth Amendment and Search and Seizure
description: An overview of the legal standards and requirements for searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
keywords: [fourth amendment, search, seizure, probable cause, warrant, exclusionary rule]
category: law
---

## The Fourth Amendment and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he 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."[^1] The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, which is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances.[^2] The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protects an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.[^3] This reasonable expectation of privacy test has two components: (1) the individual must have exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.[^4]

## Warrantless Searches and Seizures

As a general rule, warrantless searches and seizures are presumed to be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to a few well-established exceptions.[^5] These exceptions include searches incident to a lawful arrest,[^6] plain view doctrine,[^7] exigent circumstances,[^8] automobile exception,[^9] consent searches,[^10] and administrative/regulatory searches.[^11] The government bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search or seizure falls within one of these exceptions.[^12]

## Probable Cause and the Warrant Requirement

The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant be supported by probable cause, as determined by a neutral and detached magistrate.[^13] Probable cause exists when the totality of the circumstances indicates a "fair probability" that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.[^14] The probable cause determination is based on the "common-sense" judgment of the magistrate, not a technical legal standard.[^15] When obtaining a search warrant, the government must demonstrate probable cause and particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized.[^16]

## The Exclusionary Rule and Suppression of Evidence

The primary remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is the exclusionary rule, which generally prohibits the government from using illegally obtained evidence in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search or seizure.[^17] However, there are several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the good faith exception,[^18] independent source doctrine,[^19] and inevitable discovery doctrine.[^20] The defendant bears the initial burden of establishing a Fourth Amendment violation, after which the burden shifts to the government to prove that an exception to the exclusionary rule applies.[^21]

## Special Needs Doctrine and Administrative Searches

The Supreme Court has recognized certain "special needs" exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements, such as in the context of administrative or regulatory searches.[^22] These types of searches are permissible without a warrant or probable cause if they are conducted for a purpose other than general crime control and the government's interest outweighs the individual's privacy interest.[^23] Examples include safety inspections of closely regulated industries,[^24] searches of public school students,[^25] and sobriety checkpoints.[^26]

## Conclusion

The Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are a fundamental component of the Bill of Rights, safeguarding individual privacy and limiting the government's power to intrude upon that privacy. While the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause, the courts have recognized several exceptions to this rule based on the totality of the circumstances and the government's compelling interests. Ultimately, the reasonableness of a search or seizure is determined on a case-by-case basis, with the exclusionary rule serving as the primary remedy for violations of this constitutional guarantee.

[^1]: U.S. Const. amend. IV.
[^2]: See, e.g., Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996).
[^3]: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).
[^4]: Id.
[^5]: Katz, 389 U.S. at 357.
[^6]: Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
[^7]: Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
[^8]: Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978).
[^9]: Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
[^10]: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
[^11]: New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987).
[^12]: See, e.g., United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 (1951).
[^13]: Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).
[^14]: Id.
[^15]: Id. at 231.
[^16]: U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480 (1976).
[^17]: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
[^18]: United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
[^19]: Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988).
[^20]: Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
[^21]: Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 130 n.1 (1978).
[^22]: See, e.g., New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
[^23]: See, e.g., Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
[^24]: See, e.g., Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981).
[^25]: T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 325.
[^26]: Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).