Amendment 4 — Unreasonable Seizures Of Persons

prev | next

Fourth Amendment :

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.

That the Fourth Amendment was intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as against unreasonable searches was early assumed by Chief Justice John Marshall[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn1amd4 " Ex parte Burford, 7 U.S. (3 Cr.) 448 (1806). ") and is now established law.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn2amd4 " Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485–86 (1958); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 416–18 (1976); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 583–86 (1980); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 211–13 (1981). ") At common law, warrantless arrests of persons who had committed a breach of the peace or a felony were permitted,[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn3amd4 " 1 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 193 (1883). At common law warrantless arrest was also permissible for some misdemeanors not involving a breach of the peace. See the lengthy historical treatment in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 326–45 (2001). ") and this history is reflected in the fact that the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the arrest is made in a public place on probable cause, regardless of whether a warrant has been obtained.[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn4amd4 " United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). See also United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (sustaining warrantless arrest of suspect in her home when she was initially approached in her doorway and then retreated into house). However, a suspect arrested on probable cause but without a warrant is entitled to a prompt, nonadversary hearing before a magistrate under procedures designed to provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause in order to keep the arrestee in custody. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975). A “prompt” hearing now means a hearing that is administratively convenient. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991) (authorizing “as a general matter” detention for up to 48 hours without a probable-cause hearing, after which time the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying further detention). ") To determine whether an officer has probable cause to make a warrantless arrest, courts consider the “totality of the circumstances,” examining “the events leading up to the arrest” and deciding “whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to” probable cause.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn5amd4 " Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The totality of circumstances approach requires courts to consider the “whole picture” and to not look at each fact as presented to the reasonable officer in isolation. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 588 (2018). Moreover, the existence of an “innocent explanation” for a particular circumstance is insufficient to deny probable cause for an arrest when, in considering all of the circumstances, including any plausible innocent explanations, a reasonable officer can conclude that there is a “substantial chance of criminal activity.” Id. at 588. ") Probable cause is not a “high bar,” [6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn6amd4 " Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014). ") requiring only a “probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” [7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn7amd4 " Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983). ") However, in order to effectuate an arrest in the home, absent consent or exigent circumstances, police officers must have a warrant.[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn8amd4 " Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (voiding state law authorizing police to enter private residence without a warrant to make an arrest); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (officers with arrest warrant for A entered B’s home without search warrant and discovered incriminating evidence; violated Fourth Amendment in absence of warrant to search the home); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985) (officers went to suspect’s home and took him to police station for fingerprinting). ")

The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures,” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required.[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn9amd4 " United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980) ( “a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave” ). See also Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16–19 (1968); Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003). Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. See, e.g., Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (police officer’s fatal shooting of a fleeing suspect); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) (police roadblock designed to end car chase with fatal crash); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (police officer’s ramming fleeing motorist’s car from behind in attempt to stop him); Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (police use of fifteen gunshots to end a police chase). The “application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued.” Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292, slip op. at 17 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2021).

The Court has also made clear that the Fourth Amendment applies to pre-trial detention. See Manuel v. Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 914 (2017) (holding that a petitioner who “was held in jail for seven weeks after a judge relied on allegedly fabricated evidence to find probable cause that he had committed a crime” could “challenge his pretrial detention on the ground that it violated the Fourth Amendment” ).

") Some objective justification must be shown to validate all seizures of the person,[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn10amd4 " The justification must be made to a neutral magistrate, not to the arrestee. There is no constitutional requirement that an officer inform an arrestee of the reason for his arrest. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 155 (2004) (the offense for which there is probable cause to arrest need not be closely related to the offense stated by the officer at the time of arrest). ") including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of arrest, although the nature of the detention will determine whether probable cause or some reasonable and articulable suspicion is necessary.[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn11amd4 " Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 650 (1979) ( “unreasonable seizure . . . to stop an automobile . . . for the purpose of checking the driving license of the operator and the registration of the car, where there is neither probable cause to believe nor reasonable suspicion” that a law was violated); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979) (detaining a person for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself constitutes a seizure requiring a “reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime had just been, was being, or was about to be committed” ); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441 (1980) (requesting ticket stubs and identification from persons disembarking from plane not reasonable where stated justifications would apply to “a very large category of innocent travelers,” for example, travelers arrived from “a principal place of origin of cocaine” ); Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981) ( “it is constitutionally reasonable to require that [a] citizen . . . remain while officers of the law execute a valid warrant to search his home” ); Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (approving “securing” of premises, preventing homeowner from reentering, while a search warrant is obtained); Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (2007) (where deputies executing a search warrant did not know that the house being searched had recently been sold, it was reasonable to hold new homeowners, who had been sleeping in the nude, at gunpoint for one to two minutes without allowing them to dress or cover themselves, even though the deputies knew that the homeowners were of a different race from the suspects named in the warrant). ")

The Fourth Amendment does not require an officer to consider whether to issue a citation rather than arresting (and placing in custody) a person who has committed a minor offense—even a minor traffic offense. In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista,[12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn12amd4 " 532 U.S. 318 (2001). ") the Court, even while acknowledging that the case before it involved “gratuitous humiliations imposed by a police officer who was (at best) exercising extremely poor judgment,” refused to require that “case-by-case determinations of government need” to place traffic offenders in custody be subjected to a reasonableness inquiry, “lest every discretionary judgment in the field be converted into an occasion for constitutional review.” [13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/unreasonable-seizures-of-persons#fn13amd4 " <span class="cite cite-type-case" full="Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (20