The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable government searches and seizures.
•Seizures can be split into two categories.
oA seizure of property is “some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.”
oA seizure of an individual occurs when an individual reasonably believes that he is not at liberty to leave a government official’s presence, given all of the circumstances surrounding the incident.
•Warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment are typically per se unreasonable.
oThe Supreme Court decided in Katz v. United States that the attachment of an eavesdropping device outside of a public phone booth constituted an unreasonable search.
REP. If an individual has a subjective expectation of privacy over the domain in question and society objectively recognizes that expectation as reasonable, then the search is unconstitutional unless law enforcement acquired a warrant or one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.

•Technology and 4th Amendment
oIn United States v. Knotts, the Supreme Court concluded that the surveillance, tracking, and following of an individual traveling on a public roadway did not constitute as a search or seizure.
Beeper
Consent from original owner
No REP on public roadways
Does not address duration of the surveillance

oIn United States v. Karo, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless use of an electronic monitor within a container was reasonable and did not infringe on Karo’s interests within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Beeper
Led to the facility and not the specific locker
No REP on public roadway

oIn United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement committed a search by attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle. 
https://youtu.be/_cYYRZjC2BQ
GPS
Government “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” the encroachment and intrusion on a protected area constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Distinguished Karo, where law enforcement obtained consent of the original owner prior to the beeper being placed in the container to track the vehicle.
“The Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test [] added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.”

oCarpenter v. United States, holding that the warrantless acquisition o

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...