This article discusses the contrast between two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that helped clearly define how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are interpreted Constitution of the United States, and analyzes the difference between “Constitution” and “Constitutional law”. Two cases referenced in this analysis are (1) Katz v. United States, 386 US 954 (US March 13, 1967), and (2) Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438 (US 4 June 1928), which differed in ruling; one ultimately overturns the other. Finally, we come to a conclusion about the importance of these decisions in the lives of Americans. Constitution vs. Constitutional Law The Fourth (4th) Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “the right of the people to security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall be issued, except for probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Kanovitz, 2010). Courts use a two-part test to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched (Kanovitz, 2010). First, did the person actually expect a certain degree of privacy? Second, is the person's expectation objectively reasonable and is that expectation willing to recognize it? (Kanovitz, 2010). However, in order for the 4th Amendment to be enforced, the United States Supreme Court acted using the powers granted by Congress to protect and uphold the Constitution. The 4th Amendment does not clearly define exactly what an unreasonable search is, thus leaving interpretation to the discretion of… middle of the paper… relevant elements arising from “unreasonable search and seizure.” This was a historic decision that has since redefined and clarified the intended meaning of how the 4th Amendment applies to civil liberties today. References Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law (12th ed.). (ER Ebben, ed.) New Providence, NJ, USA: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Gorup.Katz v. United States, 386 US 954 (US March 13, 1967). FindLaw http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=386&invol=954Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438 (USA June 4, 1928). Cornell University School of Law; Legal Information Center; http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.htmlSilverman v. United States, 365 US 505, 511 p.353. (United States, March 6, 1961). Justia.com; http://supreme.justia.com/us/365/505/case.html