Articles Tagged with 4th Amendment

Published on:

dog Supreme Court of Illinois holds that use of a drug-detection dog violated Fourth Amendment in People v. Burns.

On January 10, 1013 at 3:20 am, the police along with a drug-detection dog went into defendant’s apartment building.  This officer and his dog got into the building when a tenant let in a fellow officer, who was undercover.  The drug dog alerted to defendant’s apartment door and a search warrant was obtained.  The apartment was searched, drugs were found, and defendant was charged.

The Illinois Supreme Court first looked at the United States Supreme Court case of Florida v. Jardines, in which the police took a drug dog to the front porch of the defendant’s home and sniffed the door.  The Supreme Court of the United States found that this was a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. The US Supreme Court went on to state that the areas surrounding and associated with the home are considered part of the home.

Published on:


In People v. Rhinehart, 2011 IL App (1st) 100683, a Chicago Police Officer was flagged down and told that a black male wearing a white shirt and yellow pants was carrying a gun.  The police then located the man and conducted a pat-down search which resulted in the recovery of a weapon.  At the trial court, defendant filed a motion to attempt to have the gun suppressed and cited Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968) and Florida v JL, 529 US 266 (2000).  The trial court denied the motion.  Defendant appealed and the Appellate Court reversed.

Here the state provided no basis to believe that the informant was reliable and there was insufficient basis for the officer to believe that defendant was engaged in criminal activity to justify a Terry stop.

Published on:

In United States v. Jones, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1063* (January 23, 2012), the Supreme Court addresses the question of whether the installation of a GPS tracking device is a search under the 4th Amendment.

In Jones, a GPS tracking device was installed on a car being driven by Jones and monitored his movement for four weeks. All members of the Court agreed that the installation and monitoring of defendant’s car by GPS was a violation of the 4th Amendment, but the Court did so in three separate opinions.

The majority opinion held that the installation of the GPS was a trespass to an “effect” as the term is used in the 4th Amendment and found that the government physically occupied the property of defendant in order to obtain information about the defendant. The Court went on to state that it did not have to engage in a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis because the trespass disposed of the issue.

Published on:

In People v. Miranda, 2012 Il App (2d) 100796, the appellate court found that a search warrant issued after a driver was arrested for DUI lacked probable cause to search for controlled substances but did contain probable cause to search for alcohol. The court found that the affidavit submitted by the police officer was insufficient to establish probable cause to search for controlled substances and also held that the police could not rely on the “good faith” exception because that affidavit so lacked probable cause that reliance on the warrant was unreasonable.

Contact Information