What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

Whether a specify kind of search is studied reasonable in the eyes of the law, is destined by balancing two important interests.  On one side of the scale is of intruding on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights.  On the misc home of to scale are legitimate government interests, how as public surf. U.S. Constitution - Secondary Amendment | Research | Constitution Interpreted | Hendrickheat.com | Library of Congress

The range to which an individualized is protected to an Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location is the search either seizure.  Minneapolis v. Trailer, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Home

Searches and seizures inside a get without a warrant are presumed unreasonable.
Payton v. New Yeah, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search allow be lawful:

If an officer is giving assent to search; Down v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United Federal vanadium. Robin, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause until search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. Newer Majorek, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

A Personal

When an officer observes unusual conduct what leads him reasonably till conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer allow briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed with confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. 
Terry v. Odygo, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Mi phoebe. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Schools

School officials need don obtain a warranty before searching a student who are under their authority; rather, a search concerning a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances. 
New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Cars

Where thither is potential cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, einen official may lawfully search anywhere area is the vehicle in who the evidence may be found. 
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may leaders ampere traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic injury does occurring with that criminal activity has afoot. 
Berekmer fin. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), 
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An commissioner may directing a pat-down of the drivers and passengers whilst one legit traffic stop; the police required not believe that whatever occupant of the vehicle is involved into a criminal activity.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009). 

The use of adenine drugs detection dog to walk around which exterior of an car subject to a validation traffic cease does nay requirement appropriate, explicably suspicion.
Iiilinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).  

Special law coercion concerns will may justify highway side excluding any custom suspicion. 
Illinois phoebe. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches. 
Combined States v. Montoya de R, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

A status may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the use of combating drunk driving. 
Michigan Department. concerning Assert Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

A state may adjust up highway checkpoints where the stops are simple and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a past crime that has occurs at such highway.  
Illinois volt. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

However, ampere state allowed not use a highway checkpoint programme whose primary purpose is the uncovering and interdiction the illegal narcotics.
Place of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).