This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, April 24th, 2009.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The High Court handles several cases dealing with the Fourth Amendment this term.

I'llia Shapiro, Cato Senior Fellow in Constance. is dealing with the Fourth Amendment this term.

Ilia Shapiro, Cato Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,

and editor of Cato's Supreme Court review, comments.

So the Fourth Amendment, in part guarantees us the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure by the government.

It means that usually the government needs a warrant.

Sometimes there are exceptions to the warrant rule.

Like for example, if a cop is chasing a criminal and he runs into his house,

they don't need to get a warrant before they pursue the guy into his house.

Or if you consent, obviously, the cop can search you. Or there's other suspicions. If they see

something a little off when they stop you for a police stop in your car.

They can ask you to step out or look inside your car if they have a reasonable suspicion

that something criminal might be going on.

So this term, there are five Fourth Amendment cases.

The Roberts Court generally is kind of establishing a fairly middle road view of the Fourth Amendment.

Not too many Stark divisions on the Court. Alito is generally the most pro government on these types of

cases. Stevens is generally the most pro defendant, but there's not that much

disparity. A lot of unanimous or not not to split rulings

This year there are a few cases which are producing split rulings

In January in the case of Herring versus the United States, the court

...