Skip to comments.Free to Search and Seize (NY Times OP ED)
Posted on 06/24/2011 10:04:33 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
THIS spring was a rough season for the Fourth Amendment. The Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to allow GPS tracking of vehicles without judicial permission. The Supreme Court ruled that the police could break into a house without a search warrant if, after knocking and announcing themselves, they heard what sounded like evidence being destroyed. Then it refused to see a Fourth Amendment violation where a citizen was jailed for 16 days on the false pretext that he was being held as a material witness to a crime.
In addition, Congress renewed Patriot Act provisions on enhanced surveillance powers until 2015, and the F.B.I. expanded agents authority to comb databases, follow people and rummage through their trash even if they are not suspected of a crime.
None of these are landmark decisions. But together they further erode the privilege of privacy that was championed by Congress and the courts in the mid-to-late-20th century, when the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement was applied to the states, unconstitutionally seized evidence was ruled inadmissible in state trials, and privacy laws were enacted following revelations in the 1970s of domestic spying on antiwar and civil rights groups.
For over a decade now, the government has tried to make us more secure by chipping away at the one provision of the Bill of Rights that pivots on the word secure the Fourth Amendments guarantee of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
What are you scared of? How much pot are you growing? Your government means well and needs room to maneuver. You need to be like a little mouse when authority comes.
Sarcasm Toggle ON
I was watching a piece about a police officer that was shot. The traffic stop was described as such:
“The officers discovered a suspicious vehicle. They also observed that the occupants were not wearing seat belts. So they decided to initiate a traffic stop to investigate the suspicious vehicle and enforce the seat belt law and other minor traffic violations.” Yup, it sucks that the cop got shot. But the way it was done made me sick, as probable cause for the stop was manufactured. The Police knew the gang members in the car, knew who they were.
Clearly the plethora of traffic laws on the book are simply law enforcement tools designed to subvert the 4th Amendment.
The Sheeple bleet, bleet, bleet, thank you officer friendly for keeping me safe! The officers just smirk about how the idiots gave them every necessary tool to subvert the 4th.
I can not fathom why Americans, and especially American conservatives want to live with a government that is empowered to intervene at any moment in daily life. That is NOT freedom, it is not liberty, it is not pursuit of happiness. BUT the sheeple want it. Many Freepers want it. I just wish I could accept tyranny. I would be happier. I rue the day I read Locke, Jefferson, Blackstone. Why couldn’t I have stuck with watching Brittney get out of her car without panties? I wish I could embrace globull warming and recycling. Damn it is it too late to scrape out my brain and replace it with jello?
No, we don't have the courage or character for true reform, the next election will at best slow down the demise of Western civilization. You cant wait for the next political letdown, it won't change much - now the coming of Jesus in glory, that changes everything, and for that I can't wait.
The New York Times is just a bunch of durn Liberals.
“the sound of evidence being destroyed”.
“Your Honor, we knocked, announced that we were police officers, then listened. We could clearly hear the sound of files being wiped from a hard drive. We used a dynamic entry technique, then, being in fear for our safety, deployed six flashbangs and two tear gas canisters. At this time we noticed the deceased’s dog behaving in an odd manner, and once again, fearing for our safety...”
I have been asking that question of many Freepers, including Jim Rob and no one can give me a straight answer... they just call me a cop hater and tell me to piss off...
I have come to realize that I am not a modern American Conservative. It kills me to realize that. But it is what it is.
I am a different animal, and so are you. The best description I can come up with is:
Constitutional Republican. Or, Jeffersonian Classical Liberal.
I like “Constitutional Republican”, except that it sort of links me with the Republican Party, the GOP. I don’t like the GOP. Not even a little bit. So even having the word “republican” in the description can be misleading in a modern sense. In a classical sense it is a fantastic definition.
I don’t like the Jeffersonian Classical Liberal, because calling myself a “liberal” in the modern sense is not descriptive either. So I am really trying to define this thing.
1. Constitutional enumerated powers.
2. Eliminate the Bill of Rights as redundant.
But then you have the problem of the States. You would have to craft a State Constitution that also uses enumerated powers. Make sure the States do not regulate firearms, religion etc.
Anyway. Work in progress. We need a third party but it’s probably not politically viable. People want their tyranny. They are willing to pay for it.
Classical liberalism is perfect.
Although many here, sadly will freak out at that term on its face... further evidence of the lack of understanding that so pollutes the conservative movement and the repubs today.
Look, I do think the police are over-reaching in some instances. Your example is not one of them.
In your example known gang members are out prowling, looking for trouble. The officers note a minor violation and pull the car over. Then one officer is shot, because the guys in the vehicle were armed.
This you see as evidence of the police overstepping their bounds. No, it’s evidence of the officers recognizing a clear problem from the get-go.
One ponders what crimes were not committed due to these officer’s intervention. You don’t get four or five guys armed in a car who are headed out to dinner, to the mall, the dance club, or the movies. They’re headed somewhere to use their weapons.
According to the decision, what the Supreme actually decided was that police knocking on a door and announcing that they are the police is not a violation of the fourth amendment.
You're omitting the next part, where the cops then proceeded to kick in the door and search the premises absent a warrant...
Look, the police are clearly over the line in some regards and we all know it. Some of the new “permissions” by the courts in the last few years are clearly way over the line.
Just because you recognize it an others don’t, doesn’t mean that you are not a Conservative.
If you demand a close adherence to the U. S. Constitution you certainly are one.
Where I start going south on people is when they pick a case at random, and start going off on the police when there was clearly probably cause and Constitutional grounds.
The case mentioned above where the police noticed known gang members in a car and made a stop to cite the driver was a good case on point. You don’t take a pass on being able to check known gang members out. I don’t want a car full of armed gang members prowling my neighborhood at night. I doubt you do either.
There was a code violation. They made a reasoned stop.
Trying to make the case this was a Fourth Amendment violation makes the person leveling that charge look dim.
Its called a slippery slope and its the reason we are having this conversation to begin with...
There is no such thing as reasonable suspicion or probable cause anymore in law enforcement... the reality of it all is based more on testilying than anything else.
They had valid exigent circumstances. They didn't need a warrant.
I don’t want the Police empowered to do that. Instead I want no restrictions on the 2nd. I will take my chances.
I am aware that I chose an extreme example. That was not on accident. I chose that example to demonstrate my commitment to the 4th amendment.
I stand by the statement!
I appreciate the response, but I wasn’t able to understand your point. Could you expand on that.
“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.”
Moonman, when is the last time you read the 4th?