What Is the Difference Between the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 in Massachusetts?

Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. They share the same basic goal, to prevent police from overstepping their authority, but Massachusetts courts interpret Article 14 more broadly, giving residents stronger protections than the federal standard.

Under the Fourth Amendment, police actions are judged by what is reasonable under federal case law. The U.S. Supreme Court often uses balancing tests that weigh privacy rights against law enforcement interests. Massachusetts courts, however, have consistently held that Article 14 can go further. For example, the Supreme Judicial Court has required warrants or probable cause in situations where federal law would allow a search based only on reasonable suspicion.

This difference shows up often in suppression hearings. Evidence that might be admissible under federal law can still be thrown out under Article 14 if the state’s higher standard was not met. That includes vehicle searches, warrantless entries, and the use of cell phone data. When filing a motion to suppress, defense attorneys typically rely on both the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 to ensure full protection under both constitutions.

Understanding how Article 14 works gives defendants a stronger footing in challenging unlawful searches. A skilled attorney can help you if there has been an unlawful search. Massachusetts law does not just follow federal precedent, it often improves on it, making the state’s constitutional protections some of the strongest in the country.