Fourth Amendment: Searches, seizures and warrants

The Fourth Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against "unreasonable searches and seizures," and says warrants need probable cause. It's the rule that governs police stops and arrests, and also something many people don't expect: city code enforcement. When a Williams inspector wants to enter a house or a closed business without consent, the Fourth Amendment usually requires a warrant.

The text

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.

Source: National Archives transcription Verified1

History

The colonists objected to "general warrants" and "writs of assistance" that let British officers search anywhere for smuggled goods with no specific suspicion. The Warrant Clause's demand for particular descriptions is aimed squarely at those. Our reading: this background is standard in Fourth Amendment history; see the Constitution Annotated essays for detail Verified2.

Clause by clause

• "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" covers your body, your home, your documents and your belongings.
• "against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is the Reasonableness Clause. A search or seizure must be reasonable.
• "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" is the Warrant Clause. A neutral judge must find probable cause on sworn facts, and the warrant must say exactly where and what.

What counts as a search

There are two tests:

1. Privacy. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection" (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)) Verified3. A search happens where government intrudes on a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. Property. Physically entering a protected area to gather information is a search. The front porch is part of the home's curtilage, and police bringing a drug-sniffing dog there was a search (Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013)) Verified4. Visitors (including officers) have an "implicit license" to "approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then ... leave" Verified4. That's why a "knock and talk" is allowed but snooping around the yard isn't.

Open fields. Land away from the home isn't protected: "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter" (Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)) Verified5. For rural parcels around Williams, the line between curtilage and open field can decide a case.

Digital data. Police generally must "get a warrant" before searching a phone seized at arrest (Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)) Verified6. Getting a person's historical cell-site location information from a carrier is also a search that usually needs a warrant (Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018)) Verified7.

What counts as a seizure

A person is seized when police restrain their freedom to leave. Property is seized when government meaningfully interferes with possessory interests. In Soldal v. Cook County (1992), sheriff's deputies helped a park owner physically remove a family's mobile home; the Court held that was a seizure even though no privacy was invaded (Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)) Verified8. Our reading: towing a car, removing property in a nuisance abatement, or locking someone out of a building are all seizures that must be reasonable.

The home

"The Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant" (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)) Verified9.

Exceptions are narrow:

• Emergencies. "A burning building clearly presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry 'reasonable'" and firefighters may stay a reasonable time to investigate the cause (Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978)) Verified10.
• Hot pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect isn't automatic. The California case Lange v. California (2021) rejected a categorical rule; officers must assess case by case (Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295 (2021)) Verified11.
• No general "community caretaking" exception for homes. Caretaking duties don't give "an open-ended license to perform them anywhere" (Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (2021)) Verified12.
• Consent. Voluntary consent by someone with authority allows entry.

Code enforcement and administrative inspections

This is the part of the Fourth Amendment that most affects city government.

Camara v. Municipal Court (1967). A San Francisco resident refused to let a housing inspector in without a warrant and was prosecuted. The Supreme Court overruled its own earlier precedent and held that administrative inspections of homes need a warrant (Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)) Verified13. But probable cause for an inspection warrant is different from a criminal one: the need for the inspection is "weighed in terms of these reasonable goals of code enforcement" Verified13. An area-wide inspection program based on reasonable standards can support a warrant without specific evidence about one house.

See v. Seattle (1967). The same rule for businesses. Entry without consent into the parts of a business not open to the public "may only be compelled through prosecution or physical force within the framework of a warrant procedure" (See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967)) Verified14. Applied to OSHA workplace inspections in Marshall v. Barlow's (Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)) Verified15.

Closely regulated industries. Where a business is "closely regulated," such as junkyards in New York v. Burger, a warrantless inspection program can be reasonable if it meets strict conditions (New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987)) Verified16.

Records demands. A Los Angeles ordinance required hotels to hand over guest registries to police on demand. The Court struck it down because hotel operators had no chance for "precompliance review" before a neutral decisionmaker (City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015)) Verified17.

California's inspection warrant statute. The Legislature implemented Camara in Code Civ. Proc. §§1822.50–1822.59. "An inspection warrant is an order, in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a judge of a court of record," directing an officer to conduct an inspection required or authorized by law (§1822.50) Verified18. Under §1822.52, cause exists if "reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting a routine or area inspection are satisfied" for the place, "or there is reason to believe that a condition of nonconformity exists" there Verified19. That is Camara's standard written into state law. See Williams: entry and inspection.

Stops and arrests

• Stop and frisk. Police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion: the officer "must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion" (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) Verified20.
• Reasonable mistakes. A stop based on a reasonable mistake about what the law prohibits can still be lawful (Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014)) Verified21.
• Prompt hearing. After a warrantless arrest, a judge must decide probable cause "as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest" in the ordinary case (County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)) Verified22.

Remedies

• Exclusion of evidence in criminal cases (Mapp) Verified23. In California, voters' 1982 Proposition 8 added a "Truth-in-Evidence" provision; the California Supreme Court held it abrogated state-law exclusion rules beyond what federal law requires (In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873) Verified24. So in California, evidence is excluded for search violations only when the U.S. Constitution requires it. The provision is now Article I, §28(f)(2) Verified25.
• Civil suits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against officials and, where an official policy caused the violation, against the city itself (Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)) Verified26.

How it reaches Williams

The core right was first applied to the states in 1949: "The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society" (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)) Verified27. In 1961 the Court added the remedy: evidence obtained "in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court" (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)) Verified23. Williams police (and the county sheriff and CHP) and city code enforcement staff are all bound.

California's version

Article I, §13 is nearly identical to the Fourth Amendment (read it). Before 1982, California courts sometimes read it more strictly than federal law (People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528) Verified28. After Proposition 8, those stricter rules still define what's illegal but generally can't exclude evidence Verified24.

In Williams

• A code officer at the door. Without consent, an inspector needs an inspection warrant to enter a home or closed areas of a business Verified13,14,18.
• Looking from the street. What's in plain view from a public place isn't a search Verified3.
• Walking up to the door. Allowed under the implicit license; walking around the back yard isn't Verified4.
• Nuisance abatement and towing. Removing property is a seizure and must be reasonable, usually with notice and a hearing; see the Fourteenth Amendment for the notice rules Verified8.
• Business records. A city rule requiring businesses to hand over records on demand needs a way to get neutral review first Verified17.

Common misconceptions

• "Code enforcement isn't law enforcement, so the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply." It does (Camara) Verified13.
• "An inspection warrant needs evidence of a specific violation." Not always; reasonable area-wide standards can be enough Verified13.
• "If I refuse entry, that's evidence against me." Refusing a warrantless entry is the exercise of a right; Camara involved exactly that refusal Verified13.
• "Everything on my land is protected." Open fields aren't Verified5.
• "Illegal searches always get evidence thrown out in California." Only where federal law requires it, under the Truth-in-Evidence rule Verified24.

Check yourself

Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.