4th Ammendment
-
@WrCombs said in 4th Ammendment:
From here: https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
The Right To Privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.
So the way I take this is as it pertains to IT and information, as you have the right to privacy, which you can protect, but you don't really have to but its a really good idea to do so.
-
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
Heard of courts reaching that conclusion, you mean?
Probably what he meant.
Yes it has been in the news recently that police cannot force you to use biometrics to unlock a phone. It has long been known that they cannot make you enter a password.
-
@WrCombs said in 4th Ammendment:
@WrCombs said in 4th Ammendment:
From here: https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
The Right To Privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.
So the way I take this is as it pertains to IT and information, as you have the right to privacy, which you can protect, but you don't really have to but its a really good idea to do so.
This has nothing to do with what @Dashrender posted, nor @scottalanmiller's replies.
-
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
The general work around has been that most of the US is not technically covered by the constitution so it is generally worked around that way.
Yeah - You've been posting that a lot lately - where's your evidence of that?
-
@JaredBusch said in 4th Ammendment:
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
Heard of courts reaching that conclusion, you mean?
Probably what he meant.
Yes it has been in the news recently that police cannot force you to use biometrics to unlock a phone. It has long been known that they cannot make you enter a password.
Yes, I had heard that a state or three recently declared that a person's biometrics couldn't be used against them - though I didn't hear the reasoning behind that decision.
for example - that wouldn't be that different than a person has a key in their pocket, is the police allowed to use that key to unlock a door? Typically we'd say - hell yeah they can, but in this case, the key is your finger, and now they are saying nope you can't.
-
@Dashrender said in 4th Ammendment:
Anyone heard something like this before?
With both safes and passwords/biometrics, courts in the US are reaching the same conclusion: it's not the combination or password or fingerprint or whatever that's protected by the 4th Amendment, but the contents they unlock. The contents are often considered testimonial, and a warrant specifying unlocking and getting the content is considered a general warrant which is constitutionally prohibited.
If this really stands ground - then the key in my previous post seems like to be not allowed to be used either.... unless they are going to say, only something of the person protecting it is what makes the search constitutionally prohibited.
-
@Dashrender said in 4th Ammendment:
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
The general work around has been that most of the US is not technically covered by the constitution so it is generally worked around that way.
Yeah - You've been posting that a lot lately - where's your evidence of that?
Where have you been?
https://www.thenation.com/article/66-percent-americans-now-live-constitution-free-zone/
-
ACLU says it's a violation of the constitution. But that's a hard thing to use as the basis of law, if the argument is that we are talking about where that law applies.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
-
This is more than a decade old and a pretty basic "need to know" thing about the US. You can't talk constitution without addressing if it applies or not.
Places like NYC, Houston, all of Florida and Michigan and in fact all of New England, no major city in the west is inside the "covered by constitution" zone. Heck, not even Washington DC!
-
-
-
"The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
"The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte
Everything in these pages says it's only Border patrol/ Customs agents within the 100 mile mark that are exceptions to the 4th, Coming into the country they can break the 4th amendment within 100 miles, if they are border patrol - Because they are required to protect the US.
Cops, can not search your vehicle ,however, A friend of mine once said " As soon as the cops ask if they can search your vehicle- they can. Because if you say no, Its probable cause. If you say yes, You give permission."
SO... -
@WrCombs said in 4th Ammendment:
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
"The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte
Everything in these pages says it's only Border patrol/ Customs agents within the 100 mile mark that are exceptions to the 4th, Coming into the country they can break the 4th amendment within 100 miles, if they are border patrol - Because they are required to protect the US.
Breaking the law and suspending the Constitution is never the act of defending the nation, it is an attack upon it. Once you can make any excuse to suspend the law, what law would apply? None, obviously.
-
@WrCombs yeah.... cops can literally do anything they want. You might get them in a little bit of trouble later, but they still did whatever they wanted (illegal searches, arrests, etc), and will still have a job after they get a slap on the wrist.
-
@RojoLoco said in 4th Ammendment:
@WrCombs yeah.... cops can literally do anything they want. You might get them in a little bit of trouble later, but they still did whatever they wanted (illegal searches, arrests, etc), and will still have a job after they get a slap on the wrist.
Right, since cops cannot be prosecuted, that makes them exempt from the law, which is the same as there not being a law
-
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
"The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte
I assume this is like the 4th amendment really doesn't apply much to game wardens for the purpose of looking in your freezer etc. Doesn't it only work for the purposes though of border enforcement, and only by border patrol?
-
@StorageNinja said in 4th Ammendment:
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
"The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte
I assume this is like the 4th amendment really doesn't apply much to game wardens for the purpose of looking in your freezer etc. Doesn't it only work for the purposes though of border enforcement, and only by border patrol?
Very likely - but meh, the cops will simply call in border patrol to do the searching, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in 4th Ammendment:
@StorageNinja said in 4th Ammendment:
@scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:
"The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte
I assume this is like the 4th amendment really doesn't apply much to game wardens for the purpose of looking in your freezer etc. Doesn't it only work for the purposes though of border enforcement, and only by border patrol?
Very likely - but meh, the cops will simply call in border patrol to do the searching, etc.
Couple things here..
that case involved a fixed internal checkpoint on a highway (Not my house, or an arbitrary checkpoint setup on my local street).
The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual - I don't see how searching my house is ever going to fall under this.
The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry - The courts cool with casual racial based policing when near a border.
one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 896 n. 2; see Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 417 U. S. 590-591 (1974) Basically, again if it's in a car your expectations are a lot lower.
we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints - The checkpoint has be reasonable. I-35 North coming out of Larando? reasonable. I-35 north of San Antonio? yahhhh unlikely.
This isn't 100% removal of the 4th amendment within 100 miles of the border.
It IS still a questionable ruling.
