IV. 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.
February 2, 2012
COMMENTARY Too much government surveillance 02-01-12
I still consider the recent 9-0 SCOTUS decision to be both correct as well as something of a relief. But this column goes well beyond the relatively limited ruling and its correspondingly limited effects as a precedent. The author is right. There does need to be more done to protect ouf Fourth Amendment rights before technology gets even further ahead of us!
February 1, 2012
Appeals court overturns drug conviction, says search of bicyclist was illegal 02-01-12
Never mind that I think marijuana laws are laughable (or they would be if so many hadn't been caught up in them). The court had the right of it.- Court approves of lockdown search of backpacks 01-31-12
I couldn't disagree more. I realize that they're children and they're within the confines of a classroom during a school day. But I agree with the plaintiffs who suggest that such tactics accomplish nothing but teach children they have no rights and no recourse where authority is concerned. Is that really the lesson students should be learning?
January 31, 2012
- NH police would need warrant to access cellphones 01-30-12
I'd like to say this is a good idea, but the good idea is actually more than 200 years old now. A search is a search is a search no matter the technology involved. And while I sympathize with the authorities' argument concerning "emergency" circumstances, I frankly don't trust them to define "emergency" in a responsible manner. Streamline the warrant process in emergencies? Yes. Dispense with the warrant all together? No way.
January 30, 2012
- TSA rail, subway spot-checks raise privacy concerns 01-28-12
As well they should! How many times does it have to be said that random searches do nothing but create the appearance of security while they infringe on the rights of innocent citizens?
January 25, 2012
- Drive-by Gun Scans Prompt Privacy Questions 01-24-12
I understand the criticisms of such scanners. What I don't understand is those who would defend them! This technology effectively means that anyone, anytime could be searched without cause or even suspicion. How, pray tell, does that comply with the Fourth Amendment? The answer, obviously: It doesn't. 
Senate Vote Helps Resist Forced Entry 01-24-12
I'll be honest with you, here: Legal or illegal, I'm not so sure I'd be willing to resist the police forcibly entering my home. Even if exonerated later (and I should be), who knows what injury I'd suffer in the process? That being said, there's little question in my mind that this has been a problem, and is rapidly becoming more of an issue. Anything that upholds the Fourth Amendment and curbs police abuses of it has my support.- LEGAL COMMENTARY New Jersey Police Decide to Turn on the Freaky Red Light 01-24-12
Once again, law enforcement is jumping on technology that could very well help them to catch the bad guys. Now that sounds good — and it is! — but that's not the salient issue, here. The all too obvious problem is that not just bad guys are going to be surveilled or "highlighted." And why do some apparently believe it's okay to effectively punish innocents as long as sometime, somewhere, somebody who's not so innocent is caught? "Those who would give up liberty for security..." - LEGAL COMMENTARY U.S. v. Jones: Fourth Amendment Privacy Certainly Not "Dead," But How Do We Deal With It? 01-24-12
And this is why there needs to be some further consideration and definition of just where it is that Fourth Amendment protections stop — if they do. And if they do, the line drawn between applicability and not applicable will have a significant effect on all of us.
January 24, 2012
- BLOG ENTRY Gary Johnson: Gingrich's Ideas on Drug Policy Are "Nothing Short of Scary" 01-24-12
"Scary" doesn't seem to have quite enough syllables to adequately cover some of the notions Gingrich has expressed, does it? - Sen. Rand Paul: TSA pat-downs represent a disservice to liberty 01-23-12
As is so often the case, Senator Paul is right. I already admire his stance on this issue, but appreciate even more his refusal to consider any legislation that would make exceptions for certain people — like politicians — at airport security. He's right: We should all be treated alike, and none of us should be treated like he was. - COMMENTARY U.S. v. Jones: The Battle for the Fourth Amendment Continues 01-23-12
While Monday's decision rendered by the US Supreme Court in connection with GPS tracking was a welcome one, the writer makes more than a few valid — and frightening — points. I agree that there needs to be some definitive definition that shows that surveillance, no matter how it's conducted, is, indeed, a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment protections to which we're all entitled.
January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court: GPS location tracking qualifies as a search 01-23-12
Logically, you'd think that's right, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, lower courts split and the police sided squarely with tyranny. Thankfully, the High Court sided unanimously with liberty and the Constitution its members are sworn to uphold. - Senator Rand Paul detained by TSA 01-23-12
My congratulations to Senator Paul on two counts. First, he refused to sacrifice his rights for any sake of expedience. He wasn't uncooperative; he simply recognized that the TSA wanted to go far too far. And second, added kudos to Senator Paul who has long talked the talk, but who we can now see obviously walks the walk. Needless to say, the White House has already gone on record as supporting the TSA infringements while Senator Paul's father (Congressman and GOP candidate for President Ron Paul) lambasted the security agency as being "out of control." Guess which side I'm on... - Legislation would help Vermont gain access to drug database 01-21-12
So police want to see lists of those who are on prescription medications? Before any crime is committed and without any suspicion of an individual? That's the very antithesis of the protections offered under the Fourth Amendment, and the legislation should not be permitted to move forward.
About the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment is probably, next to the First Amendment, the most recognizable to the average American. After all, how many times have we seen some television character answer the front door and politely ask the police waiting there if they have a warrant? The Founders fashioned this amendment after having endured the uncertainty and tyranny of British officials posssessing "Writs of Assistance" enabling them to conduct broad-based searches whenever the spirit moved them to do so, typically with no more cause than bare suspicion or vengeance. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment is singularly threatened in our modern society, and is threatened more now than ever.
I agree wholeheartedly with Benjamin Franklin, who knew what to say about Fourth Amendment threats, including those made today in the name of the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terrorism": "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The fact of the matter is that, when you give up any of your freedoms, the terrorists win another battle in their war. And the rest of us lose.
Click here for more on the Fourth Amendment. Want to help preserve the Fourth Amendment? Educate yourself, and then take action!
