Fourth Amendment

Introduction to the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment safeguards your privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause. It's the bulwark against invasive government intrusions—like warrantless inspections or arbitrary stops—that erode trust in authority. Ratified on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment emerged from colonial outrage over British "writs of assistance"—general warrants allowing customs officials to search homes and ships at will for smuggled goods, without specific evidence or limitations. Influenced by English cases like Entick v. Carrington (1765), which declared such broad searches illegal, and colonial protests against unchecked royal power, James Madison proposed it to ensure the new American government couldn't repeat these abuses.

Originally limiting only federal actions, its protections were incorporated against states via the Fourteenth Amendment in the 20th century. The amendment's meaning centers on "reasonableness"—balancing individual privacy against government needs—but it demands probable cause for warrants, describing exactly what or whom to search, to prevent "fishing expeditions." When officials treat your home, car, or business as fair game, it hits hardest at families and small operators just trying to live freely. Philip L. Ellison has championed these protections, holding Michigan governments accountable and restoring dignity to those violated by overzealous enforcement.

Overview of Cases

The OLC team's Fourth Amendment victories spotlight the Amendment's role in curbing everyday abuses.

Tire Chalking

In Taylor v. City of Saginaw, Alison Taylor was repeatedly cited for parking violations after city officials marked her tires with chalk to track time limits, a practice the court held constitutes an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. Over three years, Taylor received 15 tickets, prompting her federal civil rights 1983 lawsuit alleging warrantless intrusions on her vehicle's exterior. The unanimous first-of-its-kind ruling established that even temporary chalk marks invade reasonable expectations from government invasions, influencing parking enforcement policues across the Nation. This foundational decision has spurred reforms and ending the "chalk tax" throughout the Midwest and beyond.

Warrantless Government Inspectors

In Mockeridge v. Harvey, OLC prosecuted rural property owners' privacy from warrantless inspections by county officials probing alleged code violations. The court ruled in favor of the Mockeridges, affirming that such intrusions without judicial oversight was clearly established to have violated the Fourth Amendment.



Administrative Searches

The litigation team at OLC also advanced a 2025 challenge to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission's decades-long warrantless searches of small bars and restaurants by law enforcement, where a Michigan State Trooper demanded records without a warrant as part of a criminal investigation. The decision halted the backdoor use of MLCC inspections in place of warrants and protecting business owners from arbitrary seizures.

Take Action

Faced a warrantless search, invasive inspection, or seizure that felt wrong? You're not alone, and you have rights. Reach out for a confidential consultation. We'll assess your case and fight back. Justice starts with a call.