•

Penn Law has this goat as mascot

•

based on Chinese legend that a goat would decide who was guilty

•

Dollree Mapp (1923-2014)

•

1957, police searched her house looking for someone

•

she know she was protected to tell them no if they didn't have a warrant

•

she asked to see the warrant

•

most of us have learned about warrants from the TV or movies

•

but a warrant actually comes from the Fourth Amendment

•

must be specific about what is to be searched, where and who is going to be searched

•

must be signed by a judge who is neutral who can determine that probable cause actually exists

•

Police didn't have a warrant in Dollree's case

•

they had gotten a tip that a bombing suspect might be hiding in Mapp's house

•

they came in anyway and waved around a piece of paper they claimed was a warrant

•

they didn't find the bombing suspect

•

but they found a trunk that had belonged to a former tenant

•

inside was pornography

•

was illegal in Ohio at the time

•

today, possessing pornography is protected by the First Amendment

•

Fourth Amendment

•

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

•

exclusionary rule

•

evidence that's obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used by the government in a criminal prosecution

•

it helped Dollree Mapp

•

it protects guilty people

•

if guilty people don't get these rights, it is a slippery slope into not granting them to innocent people

•

two problems

•

but it excludes relevant evidence, so it doesn't contribute to the accuracy of a verdict

•

almost only protects the guilty

•

maybe we should instead not have the rule and compensate innocent people

•

would be rights that benefit the innocent directly

•

exceptions to the Fourth Amendment protections

•

Supreme Court has said that the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect you if you give information to a third party, and the police get that information from them

•

Fourth Amendment protects your privacy

•

if you share information with someone, you can't expect it to be private anymore

•

but technological change affects this exception

•

it used to be if you didn't want anyone to know where you were going, what you were reading

•

you could hide the information pretty easily

•

they way we live now, though, it is not so easy to keep information about you private

•

if you carry a cell phone, your phone company knows where you have been

•

if you read your news on the Internet, your service provider knows that you read

•

if you buy books online, the companies where you buy these books know

•

and the government can learn all of these things without any Fourth Amendment protections

•

the balance between privacy and government knowledge has changed

•

a rule that the court created is working differently in today's world than it did twenty years ago