§ 5.02 "Persons"

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§ 5.02 "Persons"

The word "person' in the Fourth Amendment phrase implicates searches and seizures that involve: (1) D's body, as a whole, such as when she is arrested;² (2) the exterior of D's body, including her clothing, such as when she is patted down for weapons or when the contents of her clothing are searched;³ and (3) the interior of D's body, such as when blood is extracted to test for alcohol content.⁴

Early in the twentieth century, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied only to searches and seizures of material things.⁵ Based on that interpretation, oral communication was not considered a "person, house, paper, or effect"; therefore, warrantless electronic surveillance of conversations did not violate the Fourth Amendment.⁶ The Court subsequently reversed itself,⁷ and has construed the amendment's protection of "persons" to encompass electronic eavesdropping on their conversations.⁸

--------

Notes:

^[2] See, e.g., Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).

^[3] See, e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

^[4] See, e.g., Schmerber v. California. 384 U.S. 757 (1966).

^[5] Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

^[6] Id.

^[7] Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

^[8] Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 176 n.6 (interpreting Katz).