• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another attack on the fourth amendment

Caine said:
Face it, "I Don't Like It, Its not Fair." doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

It has more to do with me reading the fourth amendment and applying it as I understand it. Please stop with the petty attacks.
 
megaprogman said:
WTF does concealment have to do with being secure in your effects?
Click to expand...

Why do you repeatedly and purposely remove the "against unreasonable searches and seizures" part, Mega?

If you constanly have to remove that very important portion of the amendment to make your case, you don't actually have a case.

This is about people touching and modifying your stuff without the right to do so.
Click to expand...

If that is what it is about, then it has absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever to do with the 4th amendment.
 
megaprogman said:
It has more to do with me reading the fourth amendment and applying it as I understand it.
Click to expand...

But you are purposefully removing a major portion of the amendment (in truth, the most important part of it) in order to gain that understanding, Mega.
 
So someone being secure in their possessions doesn't really mean anything. Gotcha.
 
Tucker Case said:
But you are purposefully removing a major portion of the amendment (in truth, the most important part of it) in order to gain that understanding, Mega.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me.

I consider the government touching my stuff without due process to be quite unreasonable. Unless again it was in the normal course of their duties (meaning its ok to touch my car in a traffic stop or something similar.)
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The point is that they go onto private property to **** with people's private property already, and for **** that isn't even a real crime (the tickets were all parking tickets for not having a city sticker or some other revenue generating bull**** like that).
Click to expand...

I think the real thing here isn't to say "well damn it's already happening", but to say "why do we allow this to happen?". You may not have expectation of privacy in your driveway, but it's still your property and if the government wants access to it in order to implement their force against the individual; they should damned well go get a warrant. Even for booting a car for parking tickets.
 
megaprogman said:
Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

Look at the ammendmetn and ask yourself "What is it that a person is secure against, here?". It's right there in the amendment in very clear language. You've been removing it when you paraphrase the amendment.

"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"

I consider the government touching my stuff without due process to be quite unreasonable. Unless again it was in the normal course of their duties (meaning its ok to touch my car in a traffic stop or something similar.)
Click to expand...

That's all well and goood, Mega, but it has nothing to do with the 4th amendment becuse their is a specific thing that they are secure against. That specific thing is not "touching".
 
megaprogman said:
I addressed that.
Click to expand...

By equivocating, though. You are trying to turn "touching" into a search. It isn't. A search entails some sort of thing concealed about the person, papers, property or effects. It is not something that occurs in plain view. The movements of a car occur in plain view.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
By equivocating, though. You are trying to turn "touching" into a search. It isn't. A search entails some sort of thing concealed about the person, papers, property or effects. It is not something that occurs in plain view. The movements of a car occur in plain view.
Click to expand...

I think I just have a broader definition of search than you.
 
Caine said:
I'll ask this just like I asked in the other thread.

Why does this concern you? Are you a member of an organized crime group? Are you a habitual felon that is going to go out and break into someone's home again and again?

What makes you think the government cares about where you are going?
What makes you think you are important enough for the government to "track"?
Click to expand...
That's a total bull**** rationale, and you should know it.

"If you have nothing to hide,......" :roll:
 
American said:
That's a total bull**** rationale, and you should know it.

"If you have nothing to hide,......" :roll:
Click to expand...

When you explain to me what you are losing, I'll forfeit the debate.......
 
Tucker Case said:
What is your definition, anyway? From what it sounds like "Touching" qualifies.
Click to expand...

If something is right in front of you in plain sight (in the case of following the car around) the information is already present and you don't have to take special action to get it. If you have to manipulate something (and not mere touching, but opening the car door or attaching something would be the line I think), than you are searching as you have to take special action to bring about the information you are seeking.
 
megaprogman said:
If something is right in front of you in plain sight (in the case of following the car around) the information is already present and you don't have to take special action to get it. If you have to manipulate something (and not mere touching, but opening the car door or attaching something would be the line I think), than you are searching as you have to take special action to bring about the information you are seeking.
Click to expand...

The thing being searched is a possesion. Placing something upon something else is not a search. If I put a ham sandwich on a car, I have not searched that car. If I place a GPS on a car, I have likewise not searched that car.


The information that is gathered by the GPS is plain view information, i.e. does not require a "search".

On top of that, your definition of "search" makes no sense in the context of the 4th amendment.

And finally, why would they be opening the car door?
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Ok. If you aren't going to follow along, there is no point in responding to you.
Click to expand...

Nobody has yet to explain what security is being lost, that ISNT being lost by someone following you the manual old fashioned way.
 
Tucker Case said:
The thing being searched is a possesion. Placing something upon something else is not a search. If I put a ham sandwich on a car, I have not searched that car. If I place a GPS on a car, I have likewise not searched that car.
Click to expand...

Well it depends on the device, right? A ham sandwich is incapable of relaying information, so it can't be a search. But what if you placed a microphone in a car? That now is recording oral communications. What about a video camera? By your argument, all this is fine. Same with a GPS device. It's function is to track spatial coordinates. Just because you place it on something doesn't mean that it can't search something. And what the GPS searches is your location with timestamps. GPS isn't quite the same as a ham sandwich. Ever try to eat a GPS? It tastes bad and is all sharp and pointy.
 
Tucker Case said:
Here's the thing, the cops can and have placed devices on cars on private property before. There was a mix-up one time at our local PD because a guy who lived in the area with the same name as my father had a bunch of parking tickets so they came on to my dad's driveway and attached a boot on hs car. It was after my dad's accident so I had to go in to clear it up (which took forever). I'm not ****ting you, but they tried to get me to pay this other guy's parking tickets at first, even after they knew it was a mix up.

To me that's far more eggregious than a GPS tracker, but it's legal.

The point is that they go onto private property to **** with people's private property already, and for **** that isn't even a real crime (the tickets were all parking tickets for not having a city sticker or some other revenue generating bull**** like that).
Click to expand...

You live in the Chicagoland area too, don't you? If so, I can't say I'm surprised. Government incompetence and corruption runs rampant out here and the police are no exception on both counts. And I'd argue that the boot should be subject to a warrant as well. It's effect is basically the same as a seizure, in that you can no longer use your car.
 
Ikari said:
But what if you placed a microphone in a car?
Click to expand...
inside the car? No. Outside the car on the outer boddy of the car, why not.

What about a video camera?
Click to expand...

Again, if place outside the car, sure. I have no problem with it.

By your argument, all this is fine.
Click to expand...

Actally, as you worded these things, they weren't fine by my argument. I showed the situation which makes them fine by my argument though.
 
Tucker Case said:
And the spatial coordinates a person is in at any given time are not their property, which thus means this isn't a 4th amendment issue.
Click to expand...

Nope. But if you're the government and you want to use special electronic survalance and tracking devices; you're gonna need a reason to do so. A demonstratable reason. Which is solved by the necessity of a warrant. Technology is always going to change and advance, and not everything is going to be specifically covered in the Constitution. So instead of taking the base as "the government is able to use this", I'd rather the base be "the government is not allowed to use this and must get permission". As we change and grow then, the government is still restricted and we can allow reasonable technology and practices to exist while ensuring that the government is properly constrained.

The government need not know where I am at all times. Sure, when you're outside you have no expectation to privacy, this is true. But that doesn't mean that the sky's the limit. The government is still constrained and must remain so. If the government wants to use electronics to measure and record my position, they need a reason and a warrant to obtain that data mining. That's all there is to it. Where I go is my business, not the governments. And if they want to make it their business, they're going to need valid reason to do so.
 
Tucker Case said:
inside the car? No. Outside the car on the outer boddy of the car, why not.
Click to expand...

Functionally the same thing.

Tucker Case said:
Again, if place outside the car, sure. I have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

This too can be functionally the same thing. It's not like the mic will pick up nothing but noise, electronics can be very sophisticated along with software for noise suppression. Same with a camera. Not all wavelengths of light are blocked by metal or plastic. Inside or outside is functionally the same. You can be recorded. But one is restricted and one isn't? Is there a point then?

Tucker Case said:
Actally, as you worded these things, they weren't fine by my argument. I showed the situation which makes them fine by my argument though.
Click to expand...

And I would have to disagree with what you think is fine. I don't think the government can record my conversations without some proof that I'm doing something wrong or am a threat to someone. Proof such as demonstrated through obtaining a warrant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom