The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizures of our person, our house, our papers, and our effects. In many cases, this amendment governs our interactions with the police. Before the government—including police officers—can search your home or seize your property, it needs a good reason. This is the big idea behind the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The government needs particularized suspicion—a reason that’s specific to each suspect—before it can get a warrant. Broadly speaking, our Constitution says that the police should only be able to invade a person’s rights to privacy, property, or liberty if they have a specific reason to think that the suspect has done something wrong.
Module 11: The Fourth Amendment
When can police in "hot pursuit" enter a suspect’s property without a warrant?
Leading Fourth Amendment scholars trace the evolution of privacy rights from the Founding to today in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen.
On December 18, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States, expanding the Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” to cover electronic wiretaps.
On January 15, 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey v. T.L.O., holding that public school administrators can search a student’s belongings if they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
In this excerpt from our new Digital Privacy initiative, Jim Harper from the Competitive Enterprise Institute critiques current Fourth Amendment doctrine and calls on courts to adopt a new approach that hews closely to the Fourth Amendment’s text.
Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.
Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.
Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.
