What legal concept did the Supreme Court utilize before 1967 regarding search warrants?

The property-based approach involving common law trespass was foundational to the Supreme Court's interpretation of search and seizure laws before 1967. This approach emphasized the physical intrusion into a person's property as a key factor in determining the legality of a search. Under this framework, a search was considered unreasonable if it involved trespassing on someone's property without a warrant, thus needing to protect individuals’ rights against unlawful governmental interference.

The framework was grounded in property rights, meaning that if law enforcement conducted a search that intruded physically into a person’s property—a home, for instance—without proper legal authorization, it was deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This made the presence of a warrant necessary for lawful searches and underscored the importance of private property rights in the context of law enforcement activities.

The other options do not accurately capture the legal principles that guided the Supreme Court prior to 1967. For instance, the informed consent option implies a current understanding of consent laws, which were not the primary focus at the time. The inapplicability of warrants for private property contradicts the established need for warrants in the context of searches in private spaces. Lastly, requiring consent for all searches oversimplifies the legal landscape and ignores the nuanced case law that dictated