A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT
Understanding the Fourth Amendment: What It Is and How It Protects Your Rights
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
"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."
Simply put, the right of citizens to enjoy a reasonable amount of privacy in their person and property is a cherished right we all want. For law enforcement to search you or your property, they must do so in accordance with the Constitution. If a Court finds that the police violated your constitutional right in this regard, all evidence obtained as a result of that search will be suppressed, meaning it cannot be used against you at trial. That can often result in a dismissal of the case. Once your attorney files a motion to suppress evidence he or she believes was illegally obtained, the State bears the burden of proving that both the search and the seizure of that evidence were constitutional.
Below is a summary of the law surrounding the Fourth Amendment, along with different scenarios that illustrate how the law is applied.
Traffic Stops
For a traffic stop to be valid, an officer must identify specific and articulable facts that provide a reasonable suspicion that the individual being stopped is engaged in criminal activity. A routine traffic stop has been described as like a brief investigatory stop, like one that was discussed in the case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and the stop is characterized as a "seizure" as that term is contemplated in the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the absence of any reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed, the seizure and subsequent search are constitutionally impermissible and must be suppressed.
Georgia courts have repeatedly held that law enforcement officials are not discharging their official duties if an officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the accused was or was about to engage in criminal conduct. Further, a police officer is not discharging his official duty when he arrests an individual without the required probable cause that a crime had been committed and the person being arrested committed it.
Police Cannot Unlawfully Extend a Traffic Stop
Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a 'seizure' of 'persons' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The officer's purpose in an ordinary traffic stop is to enforce the laws of the roadway and, ordinarily, to investigate the manner of driving with the intent to issue a citation or a warning. Once the purpose of that stop has been fulfilled, the continued detention of the car and the occupants amounts to a second detention.
Indeed, Georgia courts have repeatedly held that an officer may continue to detain a driver after the investigation of a traffic violation is complete only if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver was engaged in other illegal activity. For purposes of this continued detention, nervousness alone cannot provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Indeed, Georgia courts have held that if a police officer decides to continue to detain a driver and expand the traffic stop beyond its original purpose, absent any evidence that any other criminal conduct is afoot, even a K-9's subsequent positive alert on the driver's vehicle cannot serve as a basis for the driver's continued detention.
Legal Standing of a Passenger During a Traffic Stop
Rights under the Fourth Amendment are personal, and to challenge the validity of a governmental search, an individual must actually have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, the individual must have legal standing to contest the search. Therefore, showing that you have legal standing is a threshold burden you have to satisfy before you can attempt to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of that search. As Georgia courts have explained: "It is apparent beyond doubt that society is prepared to accept as reasonable that both vehicle owners and their authorized passengers may carry bags and parcels with them into the automobile; it is further our view that society is prepared to recognize a right of privacy in those closed packages and bags, which legitimate passengers and vehicle owners carry with them into the vehicle at least to the extent of vesting the passenger or owner with lawful authority to assert a violation of Fourth Amendment rights due to an illegal search or seizure of those objects."
The Exclusionary Rule
In general, searches are of two types: those conducted with a search warrant and those undertaken without one. Searches conducted without a search warrant are considered per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Thus, a warrantless search is presumed to be invalid, and the State has the burden of showing otherwise.
Consent
When a criminal defendant consents to law enforcement searching their person or property, courts are bound to ensure that the consent was freely and voluntarily given. To justify a warrantless search on the grounds of consent, the State must prove that the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. If a search's legality is in question, the State must show that the consent was not the product of that illegality.
Officer Safety
Georgia courts have held that identification checks on both drivers and passengers are generally permitted as a safety measure for officers during a traffic stop. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has held that officers making a traffic stop may validly require a vehicle's passengers to submit to a pat-down search for weapons. Additionally, an officer may search a vehicle's passenger compartment when he has reasonable suspicion that an individual is dangerous and might access the vehicle to gain immediate control of weapons.
Exigent Circumstances
One exception to the warrant requirement is whether exigent or emergency circumstances existed at the time of the search. In such cases, a court must examine the specific facts of the case to determine whether an emergency justified the warrantless search under the circumstances. Such exigencies could include the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, to pursue a fleeing suspect, or to assist persons who are threatened with imminent injury. In contrast, there are generally no exigent circumstances when a driver is arrested, handcuffed, and the keys are secured.
It is also crucial to note that the Georgia Supreme Court has held that the mere presence of contraband, without more, does not give rise to exigent circumstances. That case involved a warrantless search of a refrigerator where narcotics were ultimately recovered. Recognizing that the case did not rise to the level of an emergency involving immediate threats to life or limb, the search was deemed illegal. This analysis aligns with the United States Supreme Court's reasoning in cases involving exigent circumstances.
Community Caretaking Doctrine and Inventory Searches
In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called "community caretaking functions,'' automobiles are frequently taken into police custody. The police may inventory the contents of a vehicle that has been lawfully impounded, but they may not use an impoundment or inventory as a means to search for contraband. The individual's right to privacy is superior to the police's power to impound a vehicle unnecessarily. Additionally, the impoundment of a vehicle is valid only if there is some necessity for the police to take charge of the property.
Georgia Courts Do Not Recognize the Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule
The United States Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that was subsequently held to be defective. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant could not justify the substantial costs of exclusion. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, has held that this good-faith exception is not applicable in Georgia, given the definition of the exclusionary rule under O.C.G.A. § 17-5-30. As such, Georgia courts have repeatedly held that there is no good-faith exception to the state's statutory exclusionary rule in cases involving a warrantless search.
Disclaimer
The information on this site is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contacting Waid Law Firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send confidential or time-sensitive information until such a relationship is formally established.
📍 Office Address: 399 Washington Ave NE, Marietta, GA 30060
📞 Phone: (470) 458-9866
📧 Email: Addison@waidlawfirm.com