According to the Supreme Court, there is no expectation of privacy in credit card bills, love letters, or other personal or revealing items left in the trash. Finally, obtaining a person’s blank or a record of telephone calls made from the phone company is not a search. Because the information was available to the bank or phone company, there is no expectation that the information will be kept private.

Even if a search has occurred, it does not mean that the police have violated the Fourth Amendment. Notice that the amendment contains two independent clauses. The first clause prohibits unreasonable searches, and the second prescribes requirements that search warrants must meet, notably the requirement that there be probable cause for the search. What the amendment does not tell us is which of these clauses is primary.

For a long time the Court has considered the warrant requirement to be primary. To obtain a search warrant, the police have to establish probable cause that the search would turn up evidence of criminality, in an orderly procedure before a neutral magistrate. Requiring a warrant places a significant check on police activity and so provides considerable protection for personal liberty. Of course, sometimes it is impractical to obtain a warrant, because of the need to act quickly to find evidence that otherwise would be removed or destroyed. Therefore, some searches can be made without warrants, but only in narrowly defined circumstances so that the search is not unreasonable.

If you have been arrested for drinking and driving or other criminal offense, contact the experienced Sacramento criminal defense lawyers at Choyce Law Firm. Our California criminal defense and DUI attorneys answer your questions, communicate with you and provide the information you need to make informed decisions about your case.