Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguards the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. 2 The Fourth Amendment generally has been interpreted to protect privacy interests by requiring police to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause before conducting a search. 3 The Supreme Court has routinely stated that warrantless searches "are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." 4 This maxim, however, is not as absolute as it appears. First, not all government intrusions upon privacy interests constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. 5 Before a warrantless governmental intrusion will be subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, it must first be determined that a "search" under the Fourth Amendment has occurred. 6 As Professor Wayne LaFave notes, the Supreme Court has never provided a comprehensive definition of the word "searches" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. 7 Second, the exceptions are neither limited nor are they always clearly delineated. On the contrary, the exceptions to the warrant requirement are rather numerous, leading some commentators to observe that the exceptions are beginning to swallow the rule. 8 A recent case decided by the Supreme Court of Connecticut provides a good example of the potential pitfalls in applying the Fourth Amendment principles laid down by the United States Supreme Court. 9 In State v. Mooney, the Supreme Court of Connecticut considered the question of whether a homeless person's duffel bag ...