And we have long adhered to the view that the warrant procedure minimizes the danger of needless intrusions of that sort.” (quoting United States v. U.S. Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972))); see also New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 18 (1990) (“Payton nevertheless drew a line at the entrance to the home. This special solicitude was necessary because ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.'”
To the contrary, they are congressionally authorized, and their constitutionality has been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1075-76 (4th Cir. 1987) (“We find the provisions of FISA to be ‘reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens,’ and therefore compatible with the Fourth Amendment.” (citing United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mich.., 407 U.S. 297, 323 (1972))), as well as every federal court that has considered the matter, Gov. Opp’n 17-18 (collecting cases).The exception to the requirement of ex parte, in camera review applies “only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance.”
The United States seems to assert that where there is reasonable suspicion, a Defendant who leaves the doors to his home open subjects himself to governmental intrusion such that officers are free to enter if they observe incriminating evidence in plain view through that open door.However, it is axiomatic that the ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”‘ Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 748 (1984) (quoting United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mich., S. Div., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)). And a principal protection against unnecessary intrusions into private dwellings is the warrant requirement imposed by the Fourth Amendment on agents of the government who seek to enter the home for purposes of search or arrest.
The Payton Court has emphasized that “the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house,” Payton, 445 U.S. at 590, and that “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed,” id. at 585 (quoting United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)). The defendants’ reading of Santana would turn that firm line into a dotted line and, at the same time, would unfairly punish any suspect who chooses to come to the door upon hearing a police officer’s knock.
(overruled)Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that probable cause must be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate rather than by an official of the executive branch whose duty is to enforce the law, to investigate, and to prosecute.)United States v. United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Michigan, S. Div., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (The requirement that probable cause must be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate reflects “our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government.”)State v. Hobbs, 2012-Ohio-3886 (“[a] person acting in a dual capacity as deputy sheriff for a county and deputy clerk for a municipal court located in that same county is not a neutral and detached magistrate for purposed of determining whether probable cause exists for issuing and arrest warrant.”)