THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS PEOPLE AND THEIR PROPERTY AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURE EXCEPT FOR PROBABLE CAUSE AND REQUIRES A DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED OR ITEMS TO BE SEIZED. THE 14TH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THIS PROTECTION FOR ALL CITIZENS. IN RAPE, PROOF IS PROBATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT'S OR SUSPECT'S GUILT IF IT ESTABLISHES A LACK OF CONSENT OR FORCE AGAINST COMPLAINANT, PENETRATION, AND THE DEFENDANT'S IDENTITY AS THE PERPETRATOR. HOWEVER, IF PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED INCORRECTLY, VALUABLE EVIDENCE MAY BE EXCLUDED. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW HOW FAR POLICE MAY SEARCH, WHEN SEARCH WARRANTS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE A SEARCH, AND WHAT PRESENTATION ASSURES A WARRANT'S VALIDITY. IN DAVIS V. MISSISSIPPI AND PEOPLE V. MORALES, CONVICTIONS WERE REMANDED OR OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE EVIDENCE FOR ARREST DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANTS AS PERPETRATORS. POLICE LACKING PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE FOR ARREST MAY HAVE A GRAND JURY SUBOPENA SUSPECTS FOR QUESTIONING, OBTAIN SUSPECTS' CONSENT TO SEARCH FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE, OR QUESTION THEM WITHOUT ARREST. WHEN SUSPECTS ARE ARRESTED WITH PROBABLE CAUSE, THEY MAY BE SEARCHED FOR A WEAPON, CONTRABAND, OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE AIDING THEIR CONVICTION; A LIMITED SEARCH OF THEIR PREMISES IS ALSO PERMITTED. A MORE EXTENSIVE SEARCH OF THEIR PREMISES, AUTOMOBILES, OR OTHER PLACES REQUIRES A WARRANT. IN COOLIDGE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, A MURDERER'S CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED BECAUSE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST HIM WAS NOT OBTAINED WITH A WARRANT. HOWEVER, A VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH MAY BE MADE WITH THE CONSENT OF THIRD PARTIES OCCUPYING THE PREMISES WITH THE ARRESTED PERSON. DISCUSSION AND MANY CASE CITATIONS ARE INCLUDED. (PAP)