Fourth Amendment Overview

Part of the US Constitution that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures; requires a warrant based on probable cause for searches.

Reasonable belief that a crime has been or is about to be committed, providing a basis for a warrant or search.

A lower standard than probable cause; allows law enforcement an investigatory stop and limited search if they believe a crime might be afoot.

A warrant must specify the place to be searched and the items to be seized; it cannot be a general search warrant.

Collecting evidence while balancing public interest with individual rights; can lead to challenges in searches of digital devices.

Searches conducted without a warrant, often allowed in specific circumstances.

Searches allowed because the person being searched gave permission.

Searches without a warrant in emergency situations.

Search allowed after an arrest for safety or to inventory items.

Evidence in plain view, visible without entering a private area, can be seized without a warrant.

Searches at international borders that don't require probable cause.

A warrant is invalid if the information used to obtain it is too old.

A third party has no right to give consent unless they have 'common authority' over an area.

Recognized types of privacy include physical, communication, information, and territorial privacy. These classifications are important in understanding and applying privacy laws to electronic spaces.

Evaluating expectations of privacy involves reviewing whether areas used by an employee are exclusive, if permission to store personal items is given, and if an access policy exists.

Searches in private sectors compare employee-owned areas to common areas; there should be a clear policy defining these differences, and a history of searches/inspections should be noted.

System admins can monitor government systems for routine protection, management, preventing unauthorized access, and verifying security.

Law enforcement monitoring of email requires consent from one party or authorization from a court order, warrant, or special probable cause.

System administrators of government equipment cannot be under the direction of law enforcement in gathering evidence.

The Ortega cases relate email monitoring to the rights of government employees and restrictions on law enforcement access.

Collecting evidence from digital devices while balancing public interest with individual rights. This area presents challenges due to the potential for mixing personal data with potential evidence.

A warrant obtained when law enforcement uses a third party to gather information. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply unless the third party works directly for law enforcement.

A search conducted without a warrant in a situation where there's a risk of imminent danger, evidence destruction, or escape. Law enforcement must show urgency.

A search allowed after an arrest. This can include safety and inventory searches, but generally excludes personal computers and similar devices.

Evidence that's clearly visible in plain view without any illegal entry or intrusion can be seized without a warrant.

Certain types of warrantless searches are common, but usually not related to computers: vehicle searches (with probable cause), field interrogations, and inventory searches.

There are four main categories of privacy: physical, communication, information, and territorial. It's important to understand these categories when considering privacy issues in online spaces.

When a private company searches an employee's computer or other work-related property, they must evaluate the employee's expectation of privacy. This involves considering factors like whether the employee has exclusive use of the area, if they were allowed to store personal information, and if there's a clear policy about access.

In the private sector, a clear policy outlining which workspaces are considered common areas and which are private is essential. This policy should also mention past searches and inspections.

Government system administrators can monitor their systems for routine security purposes. This includes preventing unauthorized access, verifying security procedures, and managing the system.

Law enforcement can't access or monitor government employee emails without consent from the employee, or a court order, warrant, or strong justification.

The 'Ortega' cases deal with the balance between government employees' right to privacy in emails and the right of the government to monitor its systems.