{
  "id": "RL33664",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33664",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 350182,
      "date": "2006-09-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:49:09.832029",
      "title": "An Overview of the Supreme Court\u2019s Search\u00a0and Seizure Decisions from the\u00a0October 2005 Term",
      "summary": "The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that \u201c[t]he right of the people to be secure in their person, 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.\u201d The Supreme Court has interpreted this language as imposing a presumptive warrant requirement on all searches and seizures predicated on governmental authority.\nHowever, the Court has carved out exceptions to the warrant requirement when obtaining such would be impractical or unnecessary. In crafting these exceptions, the Court has analyzed the \u201creasonableness\u201d of the circumstances that gave rise to the warrantless search. During the October 2005 term, the Court addressed the \u201creasonableness\u201d of such warrantless searches based on third-party consent, exigent circumstances, and parolee status. In Georgia v. Randolph (126 S.Ct. 1515 [2006]), the Court held that the warrantless search of a defendant\u2019s residence based on his wife\u2019s consent to the police was unreasonable and invalid as to the defendant, who was physically present and expressly refused to consent. The Court clarified the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard governing warrantless entry by law enforcement in an emergency situation in Brigham City Utah v. Stuart (126 S.Ct. 1943 [2006]), holding that the police officers may enter a home without a warrant when there exists an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. Also, in Samson v. California (126 S.Ct. 2193 [2006]), the Court ruled that the a parolee\u2019s reduced expectation of privacy fails to outweigh the State\u2019s interests in protecting the community.\nIn addition, the Court resolved two fundamental issues concerning the lawfulness of searches pursuant to anticipatory search warrants. In United States v. Grubbs (126 S.Ct. 1494 [2006]), the Court found that such warrants do not categorically violate the Fourth Amendment. Also, the Court held that an anticipatory search warrant authorizing the search of the defendant\u2019s residence on the occurrence of a condition precedent stated in an affidavit but not in the warrant itself was proper and supported by probable cause. This report summarizes the Court\u2019s decisions addressing these issues and will not be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33664",
          "sha1": "967806750117b6806cefeff00d4fb985d5c5446d",
          "filename": "files/20060922_RL33664_967806750117b6806cefeff00d4fb985d5c5446d.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33664",
          "sha1": "cc8a8374a19c19d74e72e7e815deaeac7f4e0dc6",
          "filename": "files/20060922_RL33664_cc8a8374a19c19d74e72e7e815deaeac7f4e0dc6.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}