What the Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect

The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures.  Where the Defendant does not have an unreasonable expectation of privacy in the thing or area searched, the search is reasonable, and the evidence obtained from it admissible.  As such, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements made on public streets and the police may monitor them without a warrant.  United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983); United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (requiring a warrant for tracking with GPS.)

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the police did not need probable cause to inspect a Defendant’s utility records, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records.  State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285 (2006.)

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in plain viewArizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).  Office however, must lawfully be in a position to view such evidence for it to be seized.  Harris v. U.S. 390 U.S. 234 (1968.)

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields under federal law (see: Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)).  New York landowners however, may establish a reasonable expectation of privacy by erecting a fence or a “no trespassing” sign.  People v. Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 475 (1992.)

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial observationCalifornia v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 215 (1986.)  Thus, there is no objective privacy in a backyard or a semi-enclosed greenhouse open to aerial view of, say, a police plane flying an altitude of 400 feet in public airspace (Ya think those police would have better things to do than harass you, right?) (See: Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989.)

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places or during a lawful traffic stop from police sniffing dogs.  See, ex: United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005.)  HOWEVER, the police using a drug sniffing dog at the front door of a home to discover if there were marijuana plants without a warrant is.  Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1412 (2013) [“When the government obtains information by physically intruding on persons, houses, papers or effects a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has ‘undoutebly occurred.'”]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy with abandoned propertyUnited States v. Lee, 916 F.2d 814, 818 (2d Cir. 1990.)  Abandoned property may be seized by police UNLESS the abandonment was a direct result of unlawful police intrusions.  People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied, 444 U.S. 969 (1980.)  In this case, the seized property must be suppressed because it constitutes “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See: Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s