“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.
1This means that the government cannot enter a person’s residence, or obtain certain property from a person, without first obtaining a warrant based upon probable cause. It was meant as a shield for individuals against government intrusion.
1there must be a warrant before they can arrest, search, or seize the evidence.
2 The warrant must be based upon an oath or affirmation.
3There must be probable cause to justify the intrusion.
4 The warrant must particularly describe:
a the place to be searched;
b The person to be seized; and/or
c The thing to be seized.
Fourth Amendment
Additional requirement
If the government can show a conspiracy exists, then it must also establish that at least one person did an overt in furtherance of the conspiracy. In the drug conspiracy context this can be done in many ways:
1Does the individual have a subjective expectation of privacy; and
2 Whether this expectation is one that society accepts as reasonable.
Normally, standing is recognized where: 1) the person is the owner of the premises or vehicle; or
2) the person was present with the permission of the owner.
Consent – simply means that a person agrees to allow the government to conduct the search or seize the thing.
Test for Consent – based upon the “totality of the circumstances” – was it objectively reasonable, i.e. would a typical reasonable person have understood that he/she was giving consent.
Actual Authority – lies in an owner of the property, or thing, or when the person has mutual use and generally has joint access or control of the premises or thing. This is true for co-inhabitants, as both risk that the other might permit the common area to be searched.
Apparent Authority – this can occur if someone lacks actual authority, but the police reasonably believe the person had authority to do so. This is judged by an objective standard – would the facts available to the officer warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises.