Consequences of Police Violating the 4th Amendment

Fourth Amendment Violations

4th Amendment Violations

Fourth Amendment Violations and Recourse

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides for "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures…," but says nothing about what a court should do if those rights are violated. ("U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4") The Supreme Court of the United States has developed what is known as the "Exclusionary Rule," which bars any evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search from trial against the defendant. But his is not the only recourse for those who have been the victims of unconstitutional searches and seizures. The court has also decided that in certain cases, the victims may sue the authorities for damages in civil court.

It was in 1961, during the case of Mapp v. Ohio where the Supreme Court set the precedent that any evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search would be excluded from trial against the defendant. The "Exclusionary Rule," as it has become known, also includes any other evidence or testimony that is derived from that original evidence. If a police officer, or some other agent of the government, acting in their official position, performs a search without a warrant, and the circumstances do not necessitate a warrantless search, then any evidence obtained by that police officer would be useless and most likely, ruin the case against the suspect.

But this is not the only recourse a citizen has if they are subject to an illegal search and seizure of their property; they can sue. In 1971 the Supreme Court heard a case, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, in which a man was the victim of a search and the seizure of his property by agents of the FBI. The search was performed without a warrant and was not subject to the warrantless search exception. Bivens sued the agents and the original court found for the FBI agents, claiming the victim had no right to sue. However, when the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the court decided that Bivens' rights were violated and that his demand for monetary reparations were in accordance with legal precedent. In it decision the court stated that "historically, damages have been regarded as the ordinary remedy for an invasion of personal interests in liberty." (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents) Bivens received $15,000 for the violation of his rights, a large sum at the time.