• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Big Win for the 4th Amendment


I saw something about this. It's nice to see SCOTUS getting something so clearly right. It is, however, kind of scary that this case made it to SCOTUS.
 
Aderleth said:
I saw something about this. It's nice to see SCOTUS getting something so clearly right. It is, however, kind of scary that this case made it to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

It's new ground. I suppose it's inevitable.
 


Nice to see the SC actually uphold the constitution.Amazing how many people think the 4th only applies only on the inside of your home.The 4th amendment clearly states effects as one of those things protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Effects are property.


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.
 
Good now rule the Patriot Act unconstitutional and I'll actually think the Judicial side of government is making some progress.
 
Paschendale said:
This just made my day.
Click to expand...

Agree...

One less infringement by government...and about an untold number to go. But, one infringement at a time, I guess. Better than going the other way, which it seemed to be moving.
 
What police dept was unclear on this? Like, who thought that putting a GPS on someone's car without a warrant or permission WASN'T a violation of the 4th?
 
KevinKohler said:
What police dept was unclear on this? Like, who thought that putting a GPS on someone's car without a warrant or permission WASN'T a violation of the 4th?
Click to expand...

You would be surprised how many people think that there is a fine print in the 4th amendment that says"only applies on the inside of your home with the curtains closed" .
 
.... People who constantly bitch about SCOTUS are funny. When they rule in your favor "OMGZ! DEY KNOW DEI CONSTATUCHION!" - When they don't "OMGZ! FAKEN RETARD JUDGES! I KNOWZ MORE DEN DEMS!"
 
Hatuey said:
.... People who constantly bitch about SCOTUS are funny. When they rule in your favor "OMGZ! DEY KNOW DEI CONSTATUCHION!" - When they don't "OMGZ! FAKEN RETARD JUDGES! I KNOWZ MORE DEN DEMS!"
Click to expand...
When the SC ignores the plain text of the constitution, cites foreign laws, or makes exceptions even though the constitution has no such thing then one should criticize the judges.
 
jamesrage said:
When the SC ignores the plain text of the constitution, cites foreign laws, or makes exceptions even though the constitution has no such thing then one should criticize the judges.
Click to expand...

Opinion is a wonderful thing. May I know where you got your law degree and what makes you more capable of understanding the constitution than SCOTUS judges?
 
Hatuey said:
Opinion is a wonderful thing. May I know where you got your law degree and what makes you more capable of understanding the constitution than SCOTUS judges?
Click to expand...

You do not need a law degree to read and understand what the constitution says.This is a pretty obvious 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'm surprised it was unanimous. Some cited property, other's cited search; I think the truth is both. In this day and age of the government taking hard aim at the 4th, at least we get a little reprieve.
 
jamesrage said:
When the SC ignores the plain text of the constitution, cites foreign laws, or makes exceptions even though the constitution has no such thing then one should criticize the judges.
Click to expand...

Even on the 4th they don't really. I think DUI check points and drug dogs both violate the 4th as they are both searches of person without cause. But at least they're drawing the line somewhere. The real problem is that as more tech comes online, government assumes total ability with it. When in fact, it should be the opposite; it should not be allowed to use new tech less authorized by the People and then only within the constraints of the Constitution.
 

They can't search you in either case unless they have reasonable suspicion. Now you may argue entrapment but in the case of DUI stops they get around that by forcing them to advertise where the DUI stops will be before they happen.

Is that enough? I don't know but at least there is some sort of line drawn at reasonable suspicion.
 
jamesrage said:
You do not need a law degree to read and understand what the constitution says.
Click to expand...

No, however you do need it to understand how the amendments apply to the US Code etc. So not only do you need an understanding of the laws in question but also of the constitution beyond simply reposting the amendment as if it means much.
 
Hatuey said:
Opinion is a wonderful thing. May I know where you got your law degree and what makes you more capable of understanding the constitution than SCOTUS judges?
Click to expand...

You don't need a law degree to see where the court folded to outside pressure and blatantly went against precedent and violated the constitution. I would say the NLRB case in 1937 (as a result of the court packing threat) is one such case. Same with Wickard v. Filburn (which said that under the commerce clause, the government had the right to limit what a farmer produced FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION). The pressure from FDR on SCOTUS created a strange precedent and overly-broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that is plain to see without a law degree.
 

I don't think it is enough. The fact is that DUI checks are searches and requires that you pull over BEFORE they have reasonable suspicion. If they see someone driving recklessly, sure that's reasonable to pull them over. Just driving on a road? I wouldn't agree. It is as it is of course, but still it's not something I can rationalize with being in line with our rights and liberties.
 

The statement is not obvious and that's why they have the supreme court.

The right of people to be secure ect--It is left up to interpretation what constitutes secure.

against unreasonable searches and seizures -- Does not state what is or isn't unreasonable.

but upon probable cause-- Again doesnt state what does or doesnt constitute probable cause.

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized-- further clarity could be needed stating that placing a GPS is a violation because tracking someone is not the same searching or seizing.

I agree completely with the decision they reached. I am responding mostly to your statement that "You do not need a law degree to read and understand what the constitution says.This is a pretty obvious amendment". Much of our constitution, and many of our laws, ammendments, ect are very vaguely worded and subject to interpetation. Nothing is clear or obvious.
 

I'm not going to argue that you are wrong, but it seems to me that the courts have made up their minds here.
 
The fact is that DUI checks are searches and requires that you pull over BEFORE they have reasonable suspicion
Click to expand...

I think they get around it because reasonable suspicion can be the number of people known to be drunk driving on certain days. You, I, or others may not think it qualifies as "reasonable" but others might, and more importantly, a court might.
 
muciti said:
I think they get around it because reasonable suspicion can be the number of people known to be drunk driving on certain days. You, I, or others may not think it qualifies as "reasonable" but others might, and more importantly, a court might.
Click to expand...

You can't be searched IMO becuase it's reasonable to think the other guy has been drinking.
 
1Perry said:
I'm not going to argue that you are wrong, but it seems to me that the courts have made up their minds here.
Click to expand...

They certainly have. As I said, I'm glad they at least drew a line here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…