THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY BY LIMITING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL PROCESSES. IT RESTRAINS THE GOVERNMENT FROM ENGAGING IN UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS DEVELOPED A SERIES OF TESTS AND WAYS OF EVALUATING ANY PARTICULAR ACT BY AN OFFICER IN A CASE QUALIFIES AS AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE. LET ME JUST SAY THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF AREA OF SUPREME COURT AND JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT IS VERY FACT SPECIFIC BECAUSE COURTS, IN ORDER TO STAY IN OUR APPROPRIATE ROLE CAN'T MAKE POLICY ABOUT POLICE BEHAVIOR AT LARGE AND CAN'T JUST LOOK OUT IN THE UNIVERSE AND SAY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES SO LET US TELL YOU ALL WHAT THAT MEANS. THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT COURTS OPERATE. UNDER ARTICLE 3, COURTS CAN ONLY HEAR INDIVIDUAL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES AND DECIDE DOES THEM. SO EVERY COURT, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT, IS LOOKING AT UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES IN THE CONTEXT OF A PARTICULAR DISPEUT WHERE SOMEONE HAS HAD SOMETHING SEARCHED BY AN OFFICER IN THEIR HOUSE, THEY'VE BEEN SEIZED UNDER A PARTICULAR SET OF FACTS, AND THEY CLAIM IN THE CONTEXT OF A LAWSUIT OR IN THE CONTEXT OF DEFENDING THEMSELVES THAT THERE'S BEEN AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SAYS YOU ARE. SO THE COURT, CASE BY CASE BY CASE, LOOKS AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND DECIDES. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF ANALYSIS THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT A NUMBER OF THINGS BUT ONE OF THE THINGS IN ADDITION TO UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS MEANT IN THE CONSTITUTION BY UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. THERE IS CASE LAW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DEVELOPED THAT LOOKS AT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN PART BY ANALYZING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THAT ITEM, IN THAT AREA. IS THERE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN YOUR HOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A POLICE OFFICER WERE TO COME INTO YOUR HOUSE, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION UNLESS, SAYS THE SUPREME COURT, THERE WAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN YOUR HOUSE. AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS DETERMINED WHETHER THERE'S A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN YOUR HOUSE BY LOOKING AT WHAT AREAS WERE PROTECTED AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING WHEN THE WORDS "UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES" WERE WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION. LO AND BEHOLD, SOMETHING LIKE YOUR HOUSE THE COURT HAS DETERMINED THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THOSE TERMS MEANT BACK THEN, AND SO IF A POLICE OFFICER WERE TO COME WITHOUT A WARRANT, THE COURT HAS SAID, IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, THAT WOULD BE AN UNUNLAWFUL SEARCH. ...