The Fourth Amendment: Your Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from arbitrary government intrusion into their persons, homes, papers, and effects. It requires warrants to be based on probable cause and to specifically describe what is to be searched or seized. Courts have extended Fourth Amendment protections to electronic communications, digital data, and cell phone location records — but surveillance programs authorized by FISA and the Patriot Act have carved significant exceptions into this constitutional guarantee.
Primary Text
U.S. Const. amend. IV“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.”
What It Means
The Fourth Amendment grew from colonial America's experience with general warrants — British 'writs of assistance' that allowed royal officials to search any premise for any reason without particularized justification. The framers responded by requiring warrants to be specific: they must describe exactly what is to be searched and what is to be seized, and must be supported by probable cause — facts sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that evidence of a crime will be found. The general rule is that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, subject to a growing list of exceptions.
The Supreme Court has extended Fourth Amendment protections to new technologies while simultaneously carving exceptions that permit broad surveillance. Key rulings: Katz v. United States (1967) established that the Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical spaces; Riley v. California (2014) held that police cannot search a cell phone without a warrant; Carpenter v. United States (2018) held that accessing cell phone location data requires a warrant. But the third-party doctrine — which holds that information voluntarily shared with third parties (banks, phone companies, internet providers) has no Fourth Amendment protection — has been used to justify mass surveillance programs.
National security surveillance programs have created the most significant modern Fourth Amendment tensions. Section 702 of FISA permits warrantless collection of electronic communications; the FBI routinely searches this database using U.S. persons' identifiers without a warrant. Civil asset forfeiture — the practice of seizing property suspected of involvement in a crime without criminal charges — has generated controversy over whether it violates Fourth Amendment seizure protections. At the U.S. border, Customs and Border Protection agents claim authority to search cell phones without a warrant, a position courts have not uniformly accepted.
Real-World Application
Carpenter v. United States (2018): The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the government needed a warrant to access seven days or more of cell phone location records held by wireless carriers, rejecting the government's argument that the third-party doctrine applied. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion acknowledged that digital data creates a 'detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence' that implicates core Fourth Amendment values. The case marked the Court's most significant expansion of digital privacy rights — and signaled that the third-party doctrine's sweeping application to digital data may face further constitutional limits.
Related Laws
Related Primary Sources
Stay Ahead of the Law
Pro members get weekly briefings on new laws, executive orders, and international legal developments — decoded in plain English, no spin.
Join Pro — Weekly Briefs