The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It states:
“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 probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
If evidence is obtained by law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment, there are remedies available to the individual whose rights were violated. The most likely remedy is the exclusionary rule, which prevents the government from using illegally obtained evidence against the defendant in a criminal trial.
The Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal doctrine that prohibits the government from using evidence in court if it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This rule applies to both federal and state actors. It is intended to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights by removing the incentive – using illegally obtained evidence to secure a conviction.
The exclusionary rule was first applied to the states in the 1961 Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio. Since then, it has become the primary remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. If the exclusionary rule is invoked, the illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court. This often means that evidence central to the prosecution’s case is suppressed, leading to acquittals or dismissed charges.
Requirements for Exclusionary Rule
For the exclusionary rule to apply and require suppression of evidence, the defendant must show:
- There was a Fourth Amendment violation
- The defendant has standing – their own Fourth Amendment rights were violated
- The evidence was obtained as a result of the Fourth Amendment violation
All three requirements must be met for the exclusionary rule to trigger suppression of evidence.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
There are some exceptions where the exclusionary rule does not require suppression:
- Good faith exception – if police conducted a search in good faith reliance on a warrant that is later ruled invalid, evidence may still be admitted.
- Attenuation doctrine – if the connection between the unconstitutional conduct and the evidence obtained is remote or has been interrupted by other circumstances, the evidence may be admissible.
- Independent source doctrine – if evidence was obtained separately from the constitutional violation, it may still be admissible.
- Inevitable discovery doctrine – if evidence would have ultimately been discovered through lawful means, it may be admissible.
Civil Lawsuits
In addition to the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings, civil lawsuits can also remedy Fourth Amendment violations.
Individuals can bring civil suits against law enforcement officers and governments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute allows people to sue for civil rights violations committed under color of law. Remedies can include:
- Compensatory damages for injuries
- Punitive damages to punish and deter violations
- Injunctive relief
Civil suits serve the purpose of both compensating victims of Fourth Amendment violations and deterring future misconduct by police. They are brought separately from criminal cases and have a lower burden of proof.
Departmental Discipline
In cases of serious police misconduct, officers may face internal departmental discipline such as:
- Reprimands
- Suspensions
- Demotions
- Termination
Departmental policies and pressure from civil lawsuits can push police departments to punish officers for Fourth Amendment violations. However, critics argue internal discipline is often mild and ineffective at deterring misconduct.
Proposed Alternatives
While the exclusionary rule remains the primary Fourth Amendment remedy, critics have proposed alternatives:
- Tort remedy – rely more heavily on civil suits against police departments to incentivize compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
- Probable cause hearing – require a hearing on probable cause soon after a search or seizure rather than only allowing defendants to contest it later at trial.
- Administrative damages – have civil fines and mandatory damages for Fourth Amendment violations paid to victims.
- Police training – invest more in officer training on constitutional requirements to prevent violations.
Each proposed alternative has advantages and disadvantages. So far, the exclusionary rule remains the predominant remedy in Fourth Amendment cases.
Conclusion
When the Fourth Amendment is violated by an unreasonable search or seizure, the most common legal remedy is the exclusionary rule. This doctrine suppresses illegally obtained evidence so that the government cannot use it against the defendant in a criminal trial. Civil lawsuits for damages and departmental discipline also play a role in remedying Fourth Amendment violations and deterring police misconduct. While not perfect, the exclusionary rule remains the primary mechanism for enforcing the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.