Did the Officers Violate Callahan’s Fourth Amendment Right?
The officers assert that Callahan waived his Fourth Amendment right to privacy when he invited Bartholomew into his home. See Brief for Petitioners at 21. They argue that Callahan assumed the risk that Bartholomew would reveal illegal activity to officers. See id. They also contend that he waived his privacy interest by conducting an illegal business transaction in his home, such that he “converted [the home] into a commercial center . . . [that is] entitled to no greater sanctity than . . . a store, a garage, a car, or on the street.” Id. at 23 (quoting Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 211 (1966)). Even if Callahan did not waive his rights, the officers assert that Callahan’s expectation of privacy had been frustrated. See Brief for Petitioner at 26–27. They argue that when a private actor, not regulated by the Fourth Amendment, searches a residence, “the exposure by the private person frustrates the defendant’s… expectation of privacy against government observation.” Id. at 26
Related Questions
- Do the MPAA lawsuits against those who are distributing DeCSS violate the First Amendment? Doesn the right to free speech include the right to distribute computer code?
- Does NSA warrantless surveillance violate the Fourth Amendments protection against unreasonable searches?
- Does this amendment violate gay peoples right to equal protection of the laws?
