Here is part of my memorendum that can be put into his. Mine has a table of contents and shit but if itll help I can write up the shit for him, will take a day or two, no problem

1.
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen is entitled to be free of invasive visits from unwelcome agencies if no jurisdiction is had or laws have been broken.


2.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Case Examples-
Example #1
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
A Florida county sheriff received a tip that Riley was growing marijuana on his five acres of rural property. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind the defendant's mobile home, the sheriff circled over the property using a helicopter. The absence of two roof panels allowed the sheriff to see, with his naked eye, what appeared to be marijuana growing inside. A warrant was obtained and marijuana was found in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeals disagreed, siding instead with the state, but the Florida Supreme Court agreed with Riley and overturned the Court of Appeals.

Decision and Rationale
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court with a four-vote plurality, arguing that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:
Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
Also vital to the Court's ruling was the fact that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:
As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.


Example #2-
Kyllo v. United States 533 U.S. 27 (2001)[1], was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the use of a thermal imaging device to detect heat emanating from a house constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, therefore requiring police to obtain a search warrant.


Facts
Danny Lee Kyllo had been charged and convicted with growing marijuana in his Oregon home after a search was conducted. A federal agent had made observations with an infrared camera outside of Kyllo's home which showed that there was an unusual amount of heat radiating from the roof and side walls of the home. (The assumption is, to grow indoors, one needs to provide lots of light so plants can photosynthesize.) This information was subsequently used to obtain a search warrant, where federal agents discovered over 100 marajuana plants growing in the home. Kyllo first tried to supress the evidence, then plead guilty. Kyllo appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court on the grounds that such observations with a thermal-imaging device constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. There, the conviction was upheld.

Opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore illegal.



Affidavit for warrant- Make sure there is no false facts, if so


II the evidence from a search based on the warrant may later be excluded upon the proper motion being e If the warrant is issued on the basis of statements in the affidavit that the police knew to be untrue or which were recklessly made without proper regard for their truth, the evidence from a search based on the warrant is not valid. By submitting a false affidavit, Officer Fox did not act "in good faith." The search was thus improper, and whatever it turned up is inadmissible in evidence.

At common law, all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), however, the Supreme Court adopted the "exclusionary rule," whereby evidence seized unlawfully was declared inadmissible in court. The rule mainly serves as a deterrent to police officers seeking to conduct unlawful searches and seizures; it has, however, a number of exceptions. The rule was extended to the states in Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897] (1984), the Supreme Court applied the "good faith" rule: evidence seized by officers objectively and in good faith relying on a warrant that was later found to be defective was still deemed admissible. If an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepares an affidavit forming the basis of the warrant, if the issuing magistrate abandons his neutrality or if the warrant lacks particularity, however, evidence seized pursuant to the warrant would still be excluded.

Despite their clarity, the Fourth Amendment's protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures" have in fact been drastically weakened since they became the law of the land in 1791. As it stands today, unless there exists a "reasonable" expectation of
privacy -- that is, a "reasonable" expectation that what one does or says will not be seen
or heard by someone else -- neither local police nor federal law enforcement authorities are required to get a warrant or other court order before they start a surveillance operation.


One love
c