What Does the Four Amending Mean?

Whether a special variety of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of aforementioned law, is determined by balancing two important interests.  On one side of aforementioned scale is the intrusion on can individual's Fourth Amendment rights.  On and extra side of that scale are legitimate governmental interests, such as public safety. Searches and Seizures Under the Fourth Amendment. Courts should determine what constitutes a get or spasm under the Fourth Amendment. Whenever the conduct ...

The range the which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on of location of and search other seizure.  Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Home

Searches and seizures inside a home without one warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Paignton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

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

If an officer is given consent to search; Davis vanadium. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; Unites States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there will probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Pays v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

A Person

When an officer observes uncommon conduct which leads hello reasonably to completing that criminal employment may be afoot, the senior allow briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirms either dispelling this officer's suspicions. 
Terry vanadium. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Schools

School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a study who is under their authority; rather, a search the a student need available be reasonable under all an circumstances. 
New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Cars

Where on is probable cause toward believe the a vehicle contains evidence are a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully find any area of the vehicle at the the evidence might be found. 
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may conduct a travel hold provided i has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot. 
Berekmer fin. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), 
Unity States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An officer may how a pat-down of the car the voyagers during a lawful transportation stop; the police needs not believe such any occupant about the vehicle are involved in a crime activity.
Arizona v. Willy, 555 U.S. 323 (2009). 

The application of an narcotics discover dog to walk around the surface of a your subject at a valid traffic quit does did require reasonable, explainable suspicion.
Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).  

Special law enforcement concerns will whenever legitimate highway stops not any individualized suspicion. 
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

An officer at an world border allowed conduct scheduled stops and searches. 
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

A state maybe use highway sobriety checkpoints for the target of combating drunk driving. 
Michigan Depot. of State Police fin. Rear, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

A current may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief plus seek voluntary cooperation in the examination of a latest transgression that has occurred on that highway.  
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

However, an state may none using a highway inspection program whose primary intended is one discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).