The Fourth Amendment in the Supreme Court
2008-2015
2014-2015 term
Heien v. North Carolina, No. 13-604 –Reasonable legal mistake by police
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175 –Search of hotel registries
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13-9972 –Reasonable seizure at car stop
Grady v. North Carolina, No. 14-493–Electronic ankle bracelet monitoring of sex offender
2013-2014 term
Riley v. California, No. 13-132, June 25, 2014 –Search of smart phone
United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212, June 25, 2014 -Search of cell phone
Plumhoff v. Rickard, No. 12-1117, May 27, 2014 –Deadly force during seizure
Navarette v. California, No. 12-9490 April 22, 2014 –Anonymous 911 call
Fernandez v. California, No. 12-7822, February 25, 2014 –Co-occupant consent
2012-2013 term
Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013)–DNA swabs of arrestees
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013)–Per se blood tests for DUI arrests
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013)–Drug dog at the front door
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013)–Standing for FISA
Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013)–Drug dog provides probable cause
Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1031(2013)–Seizures during search warrants
2011-2012 term
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012)–Strip searches of arrestees
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235 (2012)–Qualified immunity in exercising warrant
Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987 (2012)–Entering a home based on exigent circumstances
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)–GPS monitoring of a car
2010-2011 term
Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011)–Reasonable reliance an exclusionary rule
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074 (2011)–Detention of material witnesses
Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011)–Police create exigency
2009-2010 term
City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010)–Search of government issued pagers
Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2009)–Reasonableness of emergency aid exception
2008-2009 term
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)–Strip searches of schoolchildren
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009)
2014-2015 term
Heien v. North Carolina, No. 13-604, December 15, 2014
8-1 decision (JR, AS, AK, CT, RG, SB, SA, EK majority; EK, RG concurrence; SS dissent)
A police officer’s reasonable mistake of law can provide reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop.
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175, June 22, 2015
5-4 decision (SS, AK, RG, SB, EK majority; AS, JR, CT dissent; SA, CT dissent)
Lower Court Opinion
1) Facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are permitted under the Fourth Amendment; and
(2) Some form of pre-compliance review is required before police are authorized to inspect a hotel guest registry.
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13-9972, April 21, 2015
6-3 decision (RG, JR, AS, SB, SS, EK majority; AK dissent; CT, SA, AK dissent; SA dissent)
Lower Court Opinion
Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.
Grady v. North Carolina, No. 14-493, March 30, 2015
Per Curiam
Attaching an ankle bracelet monitor is a search under the Fourth Amendment; case is remanded to determine if this search is reasonable when conducted as part of a civil penalty on a convicted sex offender who has served his criminal sentence.
2013-2014 term
Riley v. California, No. 13-132, June 25, 2014
United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212, June 25, 2014
9-0 decision (JR; SA concurrence)
The police generally may not conduct a warrantless search of digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
Plumhoff v. Rickard, No. 12-1117, May 27, 2014
9-0 decision (SA) – (Not fully joined by RG, SB)
The use of deadly force by police officers in this case – firing multiple rounds into a car during a high-speed chase, contributing to the death of the driver and a passenger – was not unreasonable given the threat to public safety posed by the driver’s reckless behavior. As such, the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. But in any event, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law.
Navarette v. California, No. 12-9490, April 22, 2014
5-4 decision (CT, WR, SB, AK, SA majority; AS, RG, SS, EK dissent)
Under the totality of the circumstances, the traffic stop precipitated by an anonymous but reliable tip to 911 complied with the Fourth Amendment because the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated.
Fernandez v. California, No. 12-7822, February 25, 2014
6-3 decision (SA, AS, CT, WR, SB, AK majority; RG, SS, EK dissent; AS concurrence; CT concurrence)
The Court’s decision in Georgia v. Randolph (2005), holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient to authorize police to search a premises if another occupant is present and objects to the search, does not apply when an occupant provides consent well after the objecting occupant has been removed from the premises.
2012-2013 Term
Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013)
5-4 decision (AK, SB, JR, SA, CT majority; AS, EK, RG, SS dissent)
When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold a suspect for a serious offense and bring him to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013)
Plurality decision
(SS, RG, EK, AS majority; AK concurrence; JR, SA, SB concurrence; CT dissent)
In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute a per se exigency sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013)
5-4 decision
AS, RG, EK, SS, CT majority; EK, RG, SS concurrence; SA, JR, AK, SB dissent)
A dog sniff at the front door of a house constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search.”
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013)
5-4 decision (SA, JR, AS, CT, AK majority; SB, RG, EK, SS dissent)
Lawyers representing terrorist suspects, journalists with sources in foreign countries, and human rights activists in foreign countries do not have standing to challenge a 2008 amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (§ 702 of FISA, 50 U. S. C. § 1881a) which authorizes monitoring of overseas communications. These surveillance operations fall under the jurisdiction of the FISA court.
Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013)
9-0 decision
A positive alert by a properly trained and certified drug detection dog can provide probable cause.
Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1031 (2013)
6-3 decision
(AK, JR, AS, EK, RG, SS majority; AS, EK, RG concurrence; SB, SA, CT dissent)
The rule in Michigan v. Summers (1981) that officers executing a search warrant are permitted “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched and does not apply when a recent occupant of the premises was detained at a point beyond any reasonable understanding of the immediate vicinity of the premises in question.
2011-2012 term
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012)
5-4 decision
(AK, JR, AS, CT, SA majority; JR concurrence; SA concurrence; CT concurrence; SB, RG, SS, EK dissent)
Strip searches of arrestees may be carried out without any reasonable suspicion, at least if the arrestee is being admitted into the general jail population.
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235 (2012)
6-3 decision
(JR, AS, AK, CT, SA, SB majority; EK concurrence; SB concurrence; SS, RG dissent)
Police officers deserved qualified immunity under the rule of Malley v. Briggs (1986) when they executed a search warrant seeking all firearms and firearm-related materials, because the warrant had been approved by a magistrate and it was not so deficient that “no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue.”
Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987 (2012)
9-0 (per curiam)
Police officers acted reasonably under the exigent circumstances doctrine of Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) when they entered a home in order to investigate the possibility of a school shooting after the mother of the suspect refused to let them speak with her son and ran inside when asked about the presence of guns.
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
9-0
(AS, CT, AK, JR, SS majority; SS concurrence; SA, RG, EK, SB concurrence)
Law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car and tracking that car’s movements over public roads for a 28-day period.
2010-11 term
Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011)
7-2
(SA, JR, AS, CT, AK, EK majority; SS concurrence; SB, RG dissent)
The exclusionary rule will not apply if the law enforcement officer violates the Fourth Amendment but acts in reasonable reliance on a binding circuit court decision.
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074 (2011)
8-0
(AS, JR, CT, AK, SA majority; AK, RG, SB, SS concurrence; RG, SB, SS concurrence; SS, RG, SB concurrence;
EK recusal)
(1) The objectively reasonable arrest and detention of a material witness pursuant to a validly obtained warrant cannot be challenged as unconstitutional on the ground that the arresting authority allegedly had an improper motive.
(2) If a prosetutor did not violate clearly established law, s/he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011)
8-1
(SA, JR, AS, AK, CT, SB, EK, SS majority; RG dissent)
Exigency exception applies even if police officers create the emergency situation with their own actions, as long as their actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
2009-10 term
City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010)
9-0
(AK, JR, AS, AK, CT, SB, SS, RG, JS majority; JS, AS concurrence)
It is reasonable for the government to search the information on an employee’s pager if the government issued the pager and informed the employee that the pager could be searched at any time.
Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2009)
7-2 (per curium)
(JR, SA, AK, SB, AS, CT, RG majority; JS, SS dissent)The emergency aid exception, as described in Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) applies when there is an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that medical assistance was needed, or persons were in danger.” A reviewing court should not use hindsight in determining whether an emergency actually existed.
2008-09 term
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)
8-1
(DS, JR, AS, AK, RG, SB, SA, JS majority; JS, RG concurrence; RG concurrence, CT dissent)
A strip-search of a middle school student was unreasonable where there was no indication that the drugs being searched for presented a danger to students and no reasonable suspicion that they were concealed in the suspect’s underwear. However, the individuals who conducted the search were entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the search, clearly established law did not indicate that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
5-4
(JS, AS, DS, CT, RG majority; AS concurrence; SB dissent; SA, JR, AK, SB dissent)
The Supreme Court “clarifies” New York v. Belton and holds that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)
9-0
(RG, JR, AS, DS, CT, SB, AK, SA, JS)
A police officer may conduct a Terry frisk of the passenger in a motor vehicle which was stopped pursuant to a minor traffic violation if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous.
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)
9-0
(SA, JR, AS, DS, CT, SB, AK, RG, JS)
An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. This inquiry turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009)
5-4
(JR, AS, AK, JR, SA majority; RG, DS, JS, SB dissent; SB, DS dissent)
When police conduct an unlawful search due to isolated negligence attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply.
