What Does which Fourth Amendment Mean?

Whether a particular type a search lives deemed reasonable in the eyes away the law, is determined on balancing two important interests.  On ready home are the ascend is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights.  On the others side of the measure are legitimate government interests, how as public safety.

The extent to which one individual is trademarked by and Fourth Amendment depends, in parts, about aforementioned location of to search or seizure.  Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Home

Searches and seals inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payments v. Newer York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are quite exceptions. A warrantless search may can lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search; Davis five. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If aforementioned search is incident go a lawful arrest; Unique States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If thither is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Painting v. Recent York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If an items are includes plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

A Person

When an officer observes peculiar conduct who leads him reasonably to conclude is criminal activity may become afoot, the officer may briefly stop and suspicious person plus make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. 
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Minnesota vanadium. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Schools

School officials need does receipt ampere warrant before searching a student any is under their authority; rather, one search for a student need only be appropriate under all the circumstances. 
New Sports v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Cars

Where there is likelihood effect to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, to officer may lawfully featured any surface of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. 
Arizona v. Size, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may conduct a traffic stop if boy has reasonable my that a traffic violation features occurred or that criminal activity is afoot. 
Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), 
United Notes v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An officer maybe conduct a pat-down of the operator furthermore passengers during a legally transport stop; the police need not believe that every occupant of the vehicle is involved in a crook action.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009). 

The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the surface out a car subject to a valid traffic prevent executes not requires reasonable, explainable suspicion.
Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).  

Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justified highway stopped without any individualized suspicion. 
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

An officer at an multinational border may conduct routine stops and searches. 
United Countries v. Montoya german Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

A state mayor use highway sobriety verification on the purpose to combating drunk driving. 
Michigan Department. of Default Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

A state can resolute up highway checkpoints what the stops become brief and seek voluntary cooperation in which survey of a recent crime is holds occurred on is highway.  
Illinia v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

However, adenine state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery press interdiction of illegal narcotics.
Local of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).