Quotes About Fourth Amendment

Chambers, the Supreme Court invoked the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment and said "automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office" if officers have probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that they are entitled to seize.

In Atwater v. Lago Vista in 2001, the Court held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrested a mother, and took her to the stationhouse for booking, for not having her children in seat belts

the Court has reaffirmed that the officers' subjective motivation is irrelevant in evaluating whether a stop or an arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment. As long as the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion for making a stop, even if it had nothing to do with the real reason for the stop, he or she has not violated the Fourth Amendment.

In Navarette v. California in 2014, the Court ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is driving erratically is a sufficient basis for a police stop.

As Davies reads the historical evidence, the immediate purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prohibit general warrants and their like, but "the larger purpose for which the Framers adopted the text . . . [was] to curb the exercise of discretionary authority by officers.

in previous decades a chemical company took to the Supreme Court a case asserting its Fourth Amendment "right to privacy" from the Environmental Protection Agency's snooping into its illegal chemical discharges.

Above even our physical well-being, a central value is keeping the state out of the private realm—our "persons, houses, papers, and effects," as the Fourth Amendment puts it. We do so precisely because that realm is the crucible of so many of the attributes typically associated with the quality of life—creativity, exploration, intimacy.

The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on the notion that search and seizure must not be unreasonable. It is difficult to think of something more unreasonable than searching the private phone records and digital information of citizens who are suspected of nothing.

The erosion of privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, written to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, began in earnest under President George W. Bush.

The U.S. Supreme Court has eviscerated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, giving the police license to sweep communities, to conduct 'stop and frisk' operations.

No one in their right mind can say to me with a straight face that the Patriot Act has not aggregated the Fourth Amendment.

The institutions that we've built up over the years to protect our individual privacy rights from the government don't apply to the private sector. The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to corporations. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to Silicon Valley. And you can't impeach Google if it breaks its 'Don't be evil' campaign pledge.

The Supreme Court must strike down the government's illegal spying program as a violation of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

two components of the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—the enabling of blanket authorizations for electronic surveillance and the elimination of the FISA judge's authority to scrutinize the factual basis for a warrant application—permitted a pattern of conduct that violated the Fourth Amendment rights of millions of people.