Opinion ID: 2301253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fourth Amendment Guarantee

Text: The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by government, not private individuals. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85, 94 (1984); Waters v. State, 320 Md. 52, 60, 575 A.2d 1244, 1247-48 (1990). The protections of the Fourth Amendment are applicable to the State of Maryland through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1090 (1961); Owens v. State, 322 Md. 616, 622, 589 A.2d 59, 61 (1991). The Fourth Amendment is not, of course, a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only against unreasonable searches and seizures. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1573, 84 L.Ed.2d 605, 613 (1985); see In re Tariq A-R-Y, 347 Md. at 490, 701 A.2d at 693. In addition, even where the police have some connection to a search and seizure by a private party, the Fourth Amendment has been held not to apply where the police do not attempt to coerce, dominate or direct the private party. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 489-90, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2049-50, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 596 (1971). So, generally, when a private party acts for his or her own purpose without police instigation or participation, and subsequently gives seized items to the police, there is no State action. Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 486-90, 91 S.Ct. at 2048-50, 29 L.Ed.2d at 594-96. This general rule of non-agency, however, does not mean that private actors cannot become state actors based on the facts of a particular case. Id. In the case sub judice, the burden rests upon respondent to establish government involvement and to thereby be entitled to suppress evidence that was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the burden of establishing government involvement in a private search rests on the party objecting to the admissibility of the evidence. Waters, 320 Md. at 60, 575 A.2d at 1247-48. Finally, when determining if a search or seizure by a private individual invokes the Fourth Amendment, the question is if the private individual whose actions are in question, `in light of all the circumstances of the case, must be regarded as having acted as an instrument or agent of the state.' Id. at 57, 575 A.2d at 1246 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2049, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 595 (1971)).