. . . What the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures,
but unreasonable searches and seizures.
and I didn’t speak up because I was
For “what the Constitution forbids is
not all searches and seizures, but un-reasonable;searches;and;seizures.”
police, the question isn’t whether he was
searched or seized against his will; rath-
er, it is whether the search and seizure
was unreasonable. And this question
depends on whether the law enforce-
ment person or government actor had
A Brief History
There are two protections afforded by
against unreasonable searches and sei-zures,;and;( 2);the;protection;against;war-
absent probable cause. As with all enumerated rights, the colonists included
these protections because England did
not respect these rights.
In England, if law enforcement asked
for a warrant to seize a person or search
ask the magistrate to approve and the warrant would issue. In the colonies, the warrant was called a writ of assistance.
regarding whether the subject had committed or would commit a crime.
It Starts With Probable Cause
“No right is held more sacred, or is more
possession and control of his own per-
son, free from all restraint or interference
3 Thus, if there
is insufficient probable cause to believe a
crime has, is, or will be committed, the
search or seizure cannot occur, or the
not issue. Moreover, courts had held:
that “the Fourth Amendment pro-
tects people, not places,” Katz v.
United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351
tion of privacy,” id., at 361 (MR.
JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring),
he is entitled to be free from unrea-
sonable governmental intrusion. Of
cidents of this right must be shaped