Act - NOW - to Preserve Privacy!

Great Debates
21

Yes, I agree that exigent circumstances seem to have gotten more common lately. :slight_smile:

On the other hand, I could point to the vast number of new rights discovered by the Warren court, and suggest that the past 20 years have, in some measure, been simply the pendulum swinging back the other way.

But that discussion takes us away from my point in this thread: what is, and is not, a constitutional practice is generally not a matter of opinion, unless we happen to be discussing a matter of first impression. I wouldn’t have posted to this thread if the only claims made had been that the proposed legislation was a bad idea, or that it trampled freedoms we’ve come to expect. But the idea that it’s a wholesale revocation of the Constitution, I felt, needed to be challenged, since it suggested an ignorance of current Fourth Amendment law.

But since you ask… I think a number of current Fourth Amendment exceptions are ill-advised, and contrary to the spirit of the amendment. Case law has stretched the “search incident to arrest,” originally meant to ensure the officer’s safety, into a car in which the arrestee was recently sitting. No exigent circumstances, and the guy’s 100 yards away from his car - how is THAT ‘incident to arrest’?

But hey - the Supreme Court says it is, so that settles it. The constitution permits it.

You want a real hijack? Let’s talk sometime about the application of Batson - I could write a book about all the BS “race-neutral” explanations offered by prosecutors under Batson. Too old, too young, not dressed well, dressed too well, too wealthy, too poor, too tall, too much eye contact, too little eye contact, too soft a tone of voice, too aggressive a posture… and every damn one of them accepted by the judge as meeting the burden.

  • Rick
22

Tranquilis,

In an effort to save myself some work, let me offer this compromise: I have no heartburn agreeing that the direction of the proposed legislation is not a completely good one, and that it subverts what I believe can be fairly argued is the underlying spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

However, I maintain that what it’s asking for, with minor exceptions, merely extends the current wiretap authority into the cyber realm. As such, it generally doesn’t violate what the Supreme Court has already upheld as a body of existing search-and-seizure law.

The two exceptions to this are the notice requirement and the tap warrants based on a person, rather than a phone line.

If you disagree in substance with the above, I’ll dive back into the quote-and-reply business.

If you agree, we can talk at more length about the two exceptions, and if, as a general proposition, these proposals are wrong for the country.

  • Rick
23

Actually, the whole point of this thread was to get people to take action, not bore them to death, which we will, if we keep up quoting the hell out of each other.

Compromise accepted.

24

Tranquilis, thanks for posting the ACLU link. It was very informative. I’ve been trying to keep up on this issue through the media, but I see that it hasn’t been covered completely.

I, for one, believe that the government already has sufficient power to conduct all of the investigations it needs and that more, and less regulated, power, isn’t necesssarily in the interest of US citizens.

I intend, also, to offer my services (limited though they may be) to the ACLU and will be voicing my opinions to the Congress. Of course, because of Carnivore, and the like, I’ll be voicing my opinions to the intelligence community, also.

25

OK, it didn’t work. S1510 passed last night 96-1, without the Fiengold Ammendments.

Fiengold was the only one with the stones to say, “slow down, lets take a look at this”, and was the solitary “no” voter.

Time to tackle this through the courts.

Thank you, those that tried to help. Thank you, those that listened. Thank you, all who posted.
Mods, at your leasure, you can kill this thread. It’s served it’s purpose.