Arizona Law Makers Revise Immigration Bill to Define "Lawful Contact"

[The Patriot]

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

Now you can all get on board and support it yes?

[Chester Copperpot]

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

Now you can all get on board and support it yes?


Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.


Ill have to see the law.. Nothing in that article shows me theyre limiting things to probable cause..

I dont give 2 shits about ethnicity or racial profiling.. I just dont want to see 4th amendment violated.

[dannno]

What does lawful contact have to do with this?


A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.


Why does putting an "or" in there with all that other stuff change anything?

[The Patriot]

Ill have to see the law.. Nothing in that article shows me theyre limiting things to probable cause..

I dont give 2 shits about ethnicity or racial profiling.. I just dont want to see 4th amendment violated.

Probable cause for what? All the cop needs probable cause for is a warrant, as per the 4th Amendment.

[The Patriot]

What does lawful contact have to do with this?




Why does putting an "or" in there with all that other stuff change anything?

It doesn't, there is nothing wrong with that clause.

[The Patriot]

bump

[MelissaWV]

It doesn't, there is nothing wrong with that clause.

That is the clause that begs a "profile" of an illegal to exist :rolleyes:

A warrantless arrest may be made of someone suspected of a removable offense. Being here illegally is a removable offense. A warrantless arrest may be made of someone suspected of being here illegally.

Upon sight, how does one become suspicious of someone being here illegally?

* * *


The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.


Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin." This actually made me giggle, then facepalm, then sigh really deeply. If they are crossing out the word "solely" then it reads that they are not investigating complaints based on race, color or national origin. Period. At all. Okay! The whole bill's void, then! Cuz when you say someone's illegal, it's certainly based on their national origin!


Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants. Brewer's spokesman said that, but they didn't change the clause of the law that says police COULD do that. WILL they? It'd be stupid to, but that's never stopped anyone from doing anything.

[Vessol]

It doesn't, there is nothing wrong with that clause.

So you support the Patriot Act as well, hmm?

[driege]

So you support the Patriot Act as well, hmm?

What an ignorant response. Anyone with any legal understanding realizes that that clause is totally benign. Probable cause is a much higher standard than just looking at someone who is Hispanic and arresting them.

[Vessol]

What an ignorant response. Anyone with any legal understanding realizes that that clause is totally benign. Probable cause is a much higher standard than just looking at someone who is Hispanic and arresting them.

The Fourth Amendment reads as the following
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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."

Please tell me how this follows the 4th Amendment.

Are these police officers obtaining warrants?

[MelissaWV]

What an ignorant response. Anyone with any legal understanding realizes that that clause is totally benign. Probable cause is a much higher standard than just looking at someone who is Hispanic and arresting them.

Perhaps you can explain what police profile would be built, not using national origin as a basis of course, that would constitute someone police could "reasonably suspect" of being in the country illegally?

What would cause you to suspect one person is an illegal, and another isn't, before seeing their papers?

[angelatc]

What does lawful contact have to do with this?




Why does putting an "or" in there with all that other stuff change anything?

The section you're quoting specifically says "probable cause." That phrase isn't some arbitrary catch-all designed to allow cops to do anything they want. There are 40+ years of legal discussions and judicial precedents to define what is and isn't considered adequate probable cause. Being Mexican isn't enough.

[angelatc]

What an ignorant response. Anyone with any legal understanding realizes that that clause is totally benign. Probable cause is a much higher standard than just looking at someone who is Hispanic and arresting them.

Isn't that the most frustrating thing? They refuse to acknowledge that there are thousands of rulings on "probable cause," and none of them have been interpreted to mean "Mexican."

[Vessol]

Isn't that the most frustrating thing? They refuse to acknowledge that there are thousands of rulings on "probable cause," and none of them have been interpreted to mean "Mexican."

And each of those rulings have been under a globalist controlled U.S government and have gave more power to the police while undermining the Constitution.

[angelatc]

Perhaps you can explain what police profile would be built, not using national origin as a basis of course, that would constitute someone police could "reasonably suspect" of being in the country illegally?

What would cause you to suspect one person is an illegal, and another isn't, before seeing their papers?

There are precedents already in place. The example in the paper (that I know you read) was a van being pulled over for a traffic violation. None of the 12 people in the car have any ID. The stretch of road is already documented as a human trafficking route.

At that point, the officer would have probable cause to suspect that the driver was transporting illegal aliens, giving him the authority to investigate.

[angelatc]

And each of those rulings have been under a globalist controlled U.S government and have gave more power to the police while undermining the Constitution.

Really? The laws that protect us from being unreasonably searched are actually powers given to the police? And the globalists aren't really porponents of open borders? Wow - this conspiracy theory stuff is complicated.

The point is that from a grown up legal perspective, those words have very specific meanings and are not just wishy-washy disposable catch phrases.

[The Patriot]

The Fourth Amendment reads as the following
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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."

Please tell me how this follows the 4th Amendment.

Are these police officers obtaining warrants?

You don't need a warrant to arrest someone. You need probable cause for a warrant, you are mixing things up.

[The Patriot]

What would cause you to suspect one person is an illegal,
If they don't have their papers.

[MelissaWV]

If they don't have their papers.

Ah so if they do not have their papers, you have probable cause to ask them whether or not they have their papers.

You don't see a logical problem with this?

[The Patriot]

Ah so if they do not have their papers, you have probable cause to ask them whether or not they have their papers.

You don't see a logical problem with this?

No, if they don't have their papers, there is reasonable suspicion they are an illegal immigrant and thus they will be detained and transfered to immigration authorities.

There is no problem with it. And illegals are flooding the state before the law takes affect. Now that is what I call effective. :)

[angelatc]

Ah so if they do not have their papers, you have probable cause to ask them whether or not they have their papers.

You don't see a logical problem with this?

The problem is that they aren't allowed to ask random people for ID. They can only verify citizenship when they're investigating another crime.

Probable cause does not mean "because I thought he looked suspicious."

[Vessol]

The problem is that they aren't allowed to ask random people for ID. They can only verify citizenship when they're investigating another crime.

Probable cause does not mean "because I thought he looked suspicious."

Yes it does.

Terry vs. Ohio

[MelissaWV]

There are precedents already in place. The example in the paper (that I know you read) was a van being pulled over for a traffic violation. None of the 12 people in the car have any ID. The stretch of road is already documented as a human trafficking route.

At that point, the officer would have probable cause to suspect that the driver was transporting illegal aliens, giving him the authority to investigate.

I'm aware of that example, and it's a great one for lawful contact. The vehicle was already speeding, the driver was driving without a license at all, the officer could easily have been asking for ID to see if anyone could legally drive the vehicle, and so on. The location of the road is just an additional "oomph" to the case for asking.

I am talking about probable cause to suspect someone of the removable offense of being here. I've already posted that I'd like to see a real "profile" of an illegal, the way there are profiles for other criminals who are observed doing things that aren't necessarily against the law, but are known to be symptoms of it (gang colors, signals, drug exchanges via handshake, guns weighing down pants, etc.). No one ever responds to that, other than to say "they hang out at Home Depot" which would mean definitely that no one would want to shop there at all, because being in the parking lot might make you available for suspicion and subsequent detention/warrantless arrest. There has to be some profile people are working off of, otherwise there is no guarantee of it being colorblind.

The language they added, by the way, still says that none of this can be based on nation of origin. Does that mean you can't discriminate against people from outside the country? :p They are rewriting parts they didn't need to rewrite. This is a really simple fix, and instead they're taking lawful contact (already defined throughout the history of law enforcement) and expanding the phrase out to be more idiotproof. They just need to add exclusions for some removable offenses and they'd be golden.

[dannno]

The problem is that they aren't allowed to ask random people for ID. They can only verify citizenship when they're investigating another crime.

Probable cause does not mean "because I thought he looked suspicious."

But the bill SPECIFICALLY says that they can arrest them if they suspect them of being an illegal alien and cannot produce documents.. so let's say they are investigating them because they believe they are illegal.. that is their lawful contact.. that is how the law is worded, that's not how it is being explained by some in the media on the right.. not sure if they are being intellectually dishonest or what.



A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

I don't know how much more clearly they could word that, to be honest. Could you maybe change that sentence around for me to make it more clear that they can arrest anybody who an officer believes is an illegal alien?

[angelatc]

But the bill SPECIFICALLY says that they can arrest them if they suspect them of being an illegal alien and cannot produce documents.. so let's say they are investigating them because they believe they are illegal.. that is their lawful contact.. that is how the law is worded, that's not how it is being explained by some in the media on the right.. not sure if they are being intellectually dishonest or what.




I don't know how much more clearly they could word that, to be honest. Could you maybe change that sentence around for me to make it more clear that they can arrest anybody who an officer believes is an illegal alien?

I haven't read any media that supports this. They're all shrieking like banshees, while the legal bloggers seem to somewhat agree with me.

You're the intellectually dishonest one here.

You keep saying that, and I keep saying that the SCOTUS has ruled over and over and over that the police can't walk up to random people and ask for ID.

If anything, it's you that's being intellectually challenged by the concept that probable cause has specific legal connotations that go far beyond "Because I thought he looked sort of like the brother of guy that I saw run a yellow light last Tuesday."


A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

Probable cause.
Probable cause.
Probable cause.

Go Google "didn't have probable cause" in some of the legal journals and see how things get thrown out because suspicion absolutely doesn't equate to probable cause.

The cops would absolutely love to have "probable cause" defined as liberally as you keep insisting that it is.

[low preference guy]

What's the penalty for an officer who detains someone if a court later says there wasn't really "probable cause"?

[Vessol]

Probable cause.
Probable cause.
Probable cause.

Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

[MelissaWV]

...
Probable cause.
Probable cause.
Probable cause.

Go Google "didn't have probable cause" in some of the legal journals and see how things get thrown out because suspicion absolutely doesn't equate to probable cause.

The cops would absolutely love to have "probable cause" defined as liberally as you keep insisting that it is.

If you haven't read anything else that points out what we've been saying, I suggest you vary your reading material. It is out there, but it's swirling around in a big happy mass of opinion and garbage from both sides of the fense.

You are also saying, with the above-quoted portion, that there is a clause, then, that cannot be enforced, ever, but was left in anyways, because how can they ever have...

Probable cause
Probable cause
Probable cause

...to suspect someone of the removable offense of being here illegally? You say they can't. I say it will probably go to court if it's left the way it is, which obviously they intend to do, as they are adding more and more to the bill rather than fixing their one little loophole on the matter.

It need not be based purely on ID, or on race, or height, or anything. All I am asking is that the profile be defined by ANYONE as to how an officer will figure out who is probably guilty of a particular removable offense. I've asked it calmly for days. The best answer, still, is merely "they hang out at specific spots." That is the absolute best logic that's been applied to this thusfar.

[low preference guy]

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

And since the Arizona law made it a crime to be an illegal immigrant, people could be arrested without probable cause.

This contradicts the Arizona law, which specifically states people can't be detained without probably cause.

Which law has more authority (what's the legal term for this)?

[driege]

The cops would absolutely love to have "probable cause" defined as liberally as you keep insisting that it is.

You have the patience of an actual angel. I've given up trying to discuss this with people who are clearly looking for something to be upset about.

When this law was first passed and I heard the media reports, I was concerned about it. Now that I have read it, I see that it is all hysterics, especially with the changes they have made to make it more clear. This law does nothing to threaten any of our liberty.

[MelissaWV]

And since the Arizona law made it a crime to be an illegal immigrant, people could be arrested without probable cause.

This contradicts the Arizona law, which specifically states people can't be detained without probably cause.

Which law has more authority (what's the legal term for this)?

The Arizona law, as it purported to simply reaffirm the Federal, didn't really need to make it a crime to be an illegal in order for that section to apply. Being in the nation illegally is a removable offense, which makes someone who is standing around and being illegal (or who is determined to give the reasonable impression that they are doing so) eligible for a warrantless arrest and a request for ID.

However, the police are told they cannot racially profile, so what becomes the profile for someone to be suspected of the removable offense of being here illegally?

Still no good answer for it.

[Vessol]

You have the patience of an actual angel. I've given up trying to discuss this with people who are clearly looking for something to be upset about.

When this law was first passed and I heard the media reports, I was concerned about it. Now that I have read it, I see that it is all hysterics, especially with the changes they have made to make it more clear. This law does nothing to threaten any of our liberty.

Take a glance at my signature. When you give more power to the government and the police, it is always bad.

See you in a year when this leads to the Republicans enacting more "immigration reform" which is really a build up of the police state.

[low preference guy]

Still no good answer for it.

There's actually an answer from the guy who wrote the law. From the NY Times:


The Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

The question is whether the police will use the law as he states in this article.

[dannno]

The question is whether the police will use the law as he states in this article.

That's the extreme situation where at least 99 times out of 100 they are illegal. Police don't come upon the extreme situation 9 times out of 10. 9 times out of 10, they come up on a questionable situation. The question is whether citizens rights will be violated under this law, and not only can they be, I am pretty sure they will be.

[dannno]

You have the patience of an actual angel. I've given up trying to discuss this with people who are clearly looking for something to be upset about.

When this law was first passed and I heard the media reports, I was concerned about it. Now that I have read it, I see that it is all hysterics, especially with the changes they have made to make it more clear. This law does nothing to threaten any of our liberty.

So the Judge, Schiff and Ron Paul are looking for something to get upset about?

Read my signature. They haven't change shit.

[driege]

So the Judge, Schiff and Ron Paul are looking for something to get upset about?

Read my signature. They haven't change shit.

I believe they were basing their comments off of the initial media reports. I listened to the Judge's appearance on Alex Jones and he never really discussed the details of the law. I'd be interested in his opinion after reading it.

When this was first announced, I was very much against the law. Then I saw what was in it. The media reporting of this has been worse than pretty much anything I can remember.

[dannno]

I believe they were basing their comments off of the initial media reports.

I haven't seen ANY media reports and I have the same view that they do.

I believe they were basing their comments off of their basic knowledge of the English language.


A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

That right there says a police officer can arrest somebody without warrant if they have cause to believe they are here illegally.




I listened to the Judge's appearance on Alex Jones and he never really discussed the details of the law. I'd be interested in his opinion after reading it.


I am certain he has read the bill for himself.

[MelissaWV]

I haven't seen ANY media reports and I have the same view that they do.

I believe they were basing their comments off of their basic knowledge of the English language.

That right there says a police officer can arrest somebody without warrant if they have cause to believe they are here illegally.

I am certain he has read the bill for himself.

dannno, I now officially have bigger fish to fry on all fronts, so I'm just going to stop with the AZ stuff altogether. The people who don't want to read, won't, and will claim what they want, and they'll still be wrong. It'll all play out, it's really too late to do anything, and people don't really care anyhow until they act shocked that national ID is being proposed. Then suddenly it's "How can they do this?!"

There's so much shit gathering around for a big storm, and I'm going to get caught up in at least part of it, it seems. No one will think it's about them until it is.

At least on this subject, peace out and good luck fightin' the fight if you continue.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The problem is that they aren't allowed to ask random people for ID. They can only verify citizenship when they're investigating another crime.

Probable cause does not mean "because I thought he looked suspicious."

You seem to have a lot of faith in the mystical restraint of probable cause.



TO: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Attention: Mike Davidson

FROM: American Law Division

SUBJECT: Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act

Again in summary and to add further complication, the Supreme Court has speculated that in national security cases the “probable cause” may be less demanding or at least different than it is in the context of a traditional criminal investigation

...

Articulating precisely what “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act. As such, the standards are not really, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, and probable cause to search as existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable
prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. We have cautioned that these two legal principles are not “finely-tuned standards” comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed. The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop
or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. at 695-96 (citations omitted).

....

Probable cause is bit different under FISA. Ordinarily, probable cause speaks to the probability of the existence of a certain fact, e.g., probable cause to believe a crime has been, is, or is about to be committed and that the search will result in the discovery of evidence or contraband. FISA authorizes issuance of a surveillance or search order predicated upon the probability of a possibility;
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf


There is only one question: Am I free to go?



FLORIDA v. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)

(a) A consensual encounter does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , n. 16. Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask the individual questions, Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 5 -6, ask to examine identification, INS v. Delgdo, 466 U.S. 210, 216 , and request consent to search luggage, Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501 , provided they do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required. Thus, there is no doubt that, if this same encounter had taken place before Bostick boarded the bus or in the bus terminal, it would not be a seizure. Pp. 434-435.

Athletes in public schools are subject to suspcionless drug testing. How is that for probable cause?



BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY et al. v. EARLS et al.

The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy) adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma, School District (School District) requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. In practice, the Policy has been applied only to competitive extracurricular activities sanctioned by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Respondent high school students and their parents brought this 42 U.S. C. §1983 action for equitable relief, alleging that the Policy violates the Fourth Amendment. Applying Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, in which this Court upheld the suspicionless drug testing of school athletes, the District Court granted the School District summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the Policy violated the Fourth Amendment. It concluded that before imposing a suspicionless drug testing program a school must demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those tested, such that testing that group will actually redress its drug problem. The court then held that the School District had failed to demonstrate such a problem among Tecumseh students participating in competitive extracurricular activities.

Held: Tecumseh’s Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School District’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 4—14.

The car doesn't have to contain contraband it is contraband. Especially if you use the car to drive to Domestic Terrorist meetup's.



FLORIDA v. WHITE

Two months after officers observed respondent using his car to deliver cocaine, he was arrested at his workplace on unrelated charges. At that time, the arresting officers seized his car without securing a warrant because they believed that it was subject to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (Act). During a subsequent inventory search, the police discovered cocaine in the car. Respondent was then charged with a state drug violation. At his trial on the drug charge, he moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the search, arguing that the car's warrantless seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, thereby making the cocaine the "fruit of the poisonous tree." After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the court denied the motion, and the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed. It also certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether, absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless seizure of an automobile under the Act violated the Fourth Amendment. The latter court answered the question in the affirmative, quashed the lower court opinion, and remanded.

Held: The Fourth Amendment does not require the police to obtain a warrant before seizing an automobile from a public place when they have probable cause to believe that it is forfeitable contraband. In deciding whether a challenged governmental action violates the Amendment, this Court inquires whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed. See, e.g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 . This Court has held that when federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to obtain a warrant prior to searching the car for and seizing the contraband. Id., at 150-151. Although the police here lacked probable cause to believe that respondent's car contained contraband, they had probable cause to believe that the vehicle itself was contraband under Florida law. A recognition of the need to seize readily movable contraband before it is spirited away undoubtedly underlies the early federal laws relied upon in Carroll. This need is equally weighty when the automobile , as opposed to its contents, is the contraband that the police seek to secure. In addition, this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has consistently accorded officers greater latitude in exercising their duties in public places. Here, because the police seized respondent's vehicle from a public area, the warrantless seizure is virtually indistinguishable from the seizure upheld in G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 351 . Pp. 3-7.

If you sell anything on e-bay or conduct any business out of your home it is not your castle it is a commercial property.



MINNESOTA v. CARTER

A police officer looked in an apartment window through a gap in the closed blind and observed respondents Carter and Johns and the apartment's lessee bagging cocaine. After respondents were arrested, they moved to suppress, inter alia, cocaine and other evidence obtained from the apartment and their car, arguing that the officer's initial observation was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Respondents were convicted of state drug offenses. The Minnesota trial court held that since they were not overnight social guests, they were not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, and that the officer's observation was not a search under the Amendment. The State Court of Appeals held that Carter did not have "standing" to object to the officer's actions because the evidence indicated that he used the apartment for a business purpose--to package drugs--and, separately, affirmed Johns' conviction without addressing the "standing" issue. In reversing, the State Supreme Court held that respondents had "standing" to claim Fourth Amendment protection because they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place, and that the officer's observation constituted an unreasonable search.

Held: Any search that may have occurred did not violate respondents' Fourth Amendment rights. The state courts' analysis of respondents' expectation of privacy under the rubric of "standing" doctrine was expressly rejected in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 140 . Rather, to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable. Id., at 143-144, n. 12. The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches of "their persons [and] houses," and thus indicates that it is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual. But the extent to which the Amendment protects people may depend upon where those people are. While an overnight guest may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in someone else's home, see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91, 98-99 , one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not, see Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 259 . And an expectation of privacy in commercial property is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in a home. New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 700 . Here, the purely commercial nature of the transaction, the relatively short period of time that respondents were on the premises, and the lack of any previous connection between them and the householder all lead to the conclusion that their situation is closer to that of one simply permitted on the premises. Any search which may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Because respondents had no legitimate expectation of privacy, the Court need not decide whether the officer's observation constituted a "search." Pp. 4-8.

There are plenty of cases that could be cited illustrating how subjective probable cause really is