The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is federal law, which applies across all states, including Georgia. It provides that:
"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."
This essentially protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It requires law enforcement, in most cases, to obtain a warrant from a judge by presenting probable cause for the search or seizure. This probable cause has to be specific and must detail what is to be searched or seized.
As for the State of Georgia, it adheres to these same principles under its constitution and laws. The Georgia Constitution in Article I, Section I, Paragraph XIII 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 warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place or places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
Georgia State Law allows for certain exceptions to the warrant requirement, similar to federal law, including but not limited to searches with consent, exigent circumstances, plain view doctrine, automobile exception, and searches incident to a lawful arrest.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that certain law enforcement activities violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Here are some of these landmark decisions:
Mapp v. Ohio (1961): This case established the "exclusionary rule," which dictates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state courts. Law enforcement had obtained evidence used against Dollree Mapp without a proper search warrant.
Katz v. United States (1967): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when they placed an electronic eavesdropping device outside a public phone booth to record the defendant's conversation without obtaining a warrant first.
Terry v. Ohio (1968): This decision held that a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he conducted a search for weapons without a warrant or probable cause. However, the Court also established the "Terry stop" principle, permitting brief stop-and-frisk activities based on reasonable suspicion.
United States v. Jones (2012): The Court ruled that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore requires a valid warrant.
Riley v. California (2014): In this case, law enforcement officers searched a suspect's cellphone data without a warrant following an arrest. The Court held that this was a Fourth Amendment violation, and police generally must obtain a warrant before searching a cellphone.
Carpenter v. United States (2018): In a major ruling about digital privacy, the Supreme Court decided that law enforcement needs a warrant to access cell-site location information, a record of the cell towers a person's phone has connected to. The Court found that obtaining such information without a warrant was a Fourth Amendment violation.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. This typically requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before conducting a search. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and the boundaries of what is considered "reasonable" can sometimes become blurred, leading to potential violations. Here are some examples:
Warrantless Searches: A common violation occurs when police conduct a search without a warrant when one is required. While there are exceptions to the warrant requirement (like consent, exigency, or incident to a lawful arrest), a search outside these exceptions can be a violation.
Overbroad Warrants: Even with a warrant, the police can still violate the Fourth Amendment if the warrant doesn't specify the area to be searched or the items to be seized, or if the police exceed the scope of the warrant.
Unreasonable Traffic Stops: Unwarranted or prolonged traffic stops without reasonable suspicion can violate the Fourth Amendment. This includes using a minor traffic violation as a pretext to investigate unrelated criminal activity.
Illegal "Stop and Frisk" Searches: The police can briefly detain a person and perform a frisk for weapons (a "Terry Stop") based on reasonable suspicion. But if police lack reasonable suspicion and conduct a frisk, it can be a Fourth Amendment violation.
Illegal Wiretapping/Eavesdropping: Without a warrant or consent, wiretapping or eavesdropping can be a violation.
Searches Without Consent: If police enter and search a person's home without a warrant, absent an exception, it can be a violation. Consent must be freely and voluntarily given.
Invasive Body Searches: Unreasonable body searches, including strip searches or body cavity searches, without proper justification or conducted in a degrading manner, may constitute a Fourth Amendment violation.
Excessive Use of Technology: Using technology to invade someone's privacy, such as using thermal imaging devices to see inside a home, using drones for surveillance, or tracking a person’s movements with a GPS device without a warrant, can be violations.
Use of Illegally Obtained Evidence: If police gather evidence from an illegal search, any further evidence they find because of that original illegal search (the your-4th-amendment-rights-and-how-to-fight-back-against-an-unreasonable-search-or-seizure"fruit of the poisonous tree") can also be a Fourth Amendment violation.
School Searches: While school officials have some leeway, if they conduct a search of a student's belongings without reasonable suspicion, it could be a violation.
Violations of your 4th Amendment rights can depend greatly on the specific circumstances and local, state, and federal laws, and they often involve complex legal analysis.
An official comment under O.C.G.A. 17-5-30 states that “Under the express terms of this section, the only persons entitled to the statute’s benefit are persons “aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure.” No provision is made in this section for pretrial suppression of evidence deemed illegal for reasons other than unlawful search and seizure. Barnett v. State, 123 Ga. App. 369, 180 (1971).
The best way to review law enforcement violations is to obtain the body camera and/or dash camera footage that law enforcement may have recorded in order to hear the full statements of law enforcement and also to see the full context of law enforcement’s actions.
A seasoned and experienced attorney can file a motion to suppress evidence, testimony, and also to return any items that were taken from you at the time of arrest based on the video and audio recordings made by law enforcement. O.C.G.A. 17-5-30 allows a Defendant to file a motion to suppress evidence based on unlawful searches and seizures. Once the Defendant has made the motion, the State or Federal Prosecution is tasked with the burden of proof showing the Judge that the search was in fact lawful and reasonable. Most of the time, the person making the motion bears the burden of proof, not the side responding to the motion. This system is designed to give the Victim-Defendant a fair trial based on admissible evidence obtained lawfully by law enforcement. O.C.G.A. 17-5-30(b) states that “the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the state.”
A successful motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case can have a number of significant benefits for the Defendant:
Elimination of Evidence: The most direct result of a successful motion to suppress is that the court will not allow the prosecutor to use the illegally obtained evidence at trial. This might significantly weaken the prosecution's case and could even lead to the case being dismissed if the suppressed evidence was critical to proving the defendant's guilt.
Exclusion of Derivative Evidence: As part of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, not only is the initial illegally obtained evidence excluded, but any additional evidence that was derived from the illegal search or seizure may also be excluded. This can further weaken the prosecution's case.
Potential for Plea Bargain: With weaker evidence, prosecutors may be more inclined to offer a more favorable plea bargain to the defendant.
Protection of Constitutional Rights: Beyond the immediate case, a successful motion to suppress can reaffirm the protection of individuals' constitutional rights and deter future Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement.
Impact on Witness Credibility: If the evidence obtained shows misconduct or illegal procedures by the police or other witnesses, this might undermine their credibility, which can impact other areas of the case beyond the suppressed evidence.
Potential Impact on Sentencing: If the defendant is eventually found guilty, the absence of the suppressed evidence might lead to a more lenient sentence, depending on the nature of the evidence.
It's important to note that while these are potential benefits, each case is unique. The effectiveness and impact of a motion to suppress can depend on many factors, including the nature of the evidence in question, the overall strength of the prosecution's case, and the specific laws and precedents of the jurisdiction where the case is being tried.
Contact RAM LAW Today to Tell Us Your Story via Email, Text, or Cell.