More notes at http://tanguay.info/learntracker
C O U R S E 
Key Constitutional Concepts and Supreme Court Cases
Professor Kermit Roosevelt, III, University of Pennsylvania
C O U R S E   L E C T U R E 
The Fourth Amendment: Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Notes taken on May 31, 2015 by Edward Tanguay
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