# Today the Fourth Amendment is One Step Closer to the Grave **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744 "2014-04-23T04:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/41 "2014-04-25T21:06:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An anonymous tip that claims a specific car ran you off the road would seem to provide reasonable suspicion for reckless driving. If I provide an anonymous tip (or identified really) that you in your car with your license plate ran me off the road does that provide reasonable suspicion? What if you in fact did not do any such thing? What if I make the same report on 100 cars? How are you using the term ‘reasonable suspicion’ that is satisfied by an anonymous tip? It isn’t “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”. An anonymous tip is not a set of articulable facts in any sense of how that should be used. In this case, there was zero basis to perform the traffic stop other than the tip. The police followed the target car for about 5 minutes without observing anything that would justify a traffic stop. If I provide a tip that my neighbor is running a meth lab in his house, the police may come by and knock on the door and ask to look around but without anything else to go on and without a warrant, my neighbor is free to tell them to go pound sand, or not answer the door at all. This case is analogous, except that now the police would be able to compel my neighbor to open the door for their conversation. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/42 "2014-04-25T21:24:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An anonymous tip that claims a specific car ran you off the road would seem to provide reasonable suspicion for reckless driving. But the reckless driving would have been over with by the time the police starting following the vehicle. Police may make a Terry stop when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is “afoot.” When the criminal activity has ended, no seizure can be made except upon warrant (with the exceptions) and probable cause. The majority conceded this (at least for the purposes of the case). ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/43 "2014-04-25T23:47:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This would seem to make sense if only you didn’t post it in a thread discussing how Scalia sided with three liberal justices and would have created a liberal outcome in this case had he been in the majority. If what you said was true, Scalia would have crafted a rule to send these evil pot smokers to jail. One instance does not a trend make :rolleyes: Nor two, if you’ve got another case in mind. Maybe come back with a list of the times Scalia crossed over and then we’ll talk > [@Bricker](#): > > Some like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, whose opinions always end up on the liberal side, would be a fair target for the charge that they determine the outcome and then find a rationale. But Scalia’s record of sometimes favoring the liberal outcome suggests that he’s NOT picking the outcome first. He’s just saying that the text tells us what the law says, and if that text compels a liberal result, he may not like it, but he follows it. In their cases, I would argue that Ginsburg or Sotomayor ends up on the correct side that just happens to be liberal. I’m a firm believer of that retort that “Reality has a liberal bias”. I think you would agree, speaking of Scalia, that a more robust analysis of whether or not Scalia’s an outcome picker first or second would depend on a full assessment of his voting history? I have no idea how many times he’s sided with the liberals on 5-4 cases, we’d have to come up with criteria to determine first what are the liberal sides and justices he’s worked with and which cases apply. My impression, uncited as it is, is that for at least some infamous cases, he’s strictly on the opposite side of the liberals. Plus, his speeches outside his role as a judge points to a very conservative, and not at all liberal, bias > [@Bricker](#): > > But why should conservatives agree? Why can’t conservatives say that only conservatives should make rules? There’s 2 ways to answer that. One is they shouldn’t because it goes against their self interests. The other is that they should because it is the correct side. Given that I believe many conservatives either through ignorance, hatred, or vileness purposefully play to (or exaggerate) conservative biases as an act for nefarious reasons, I could objectively state that they should switch to the liberal side because a rising tide lifts all boats. There is precedent for changing sides if one believes something in error and changing would grant them benefits they believe their erroneous philosophy would provide > [@Bricker](#): > > The ultimate result of that standoff is our system: an agreement on how rules are made, and an acceptance of their validity when made thusly. Which, I believe, conservatives have severely harmed through unprecedented levels of obstruction and lying ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/44 "2014-04-26T14:48:11Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > One instance does not a trend make :rolleyes: Nor two, if you’ve got another case in mind. Maybe come back with a list of the times Scalia crossed over and then we’ll talk This is the big one: > **[Texas v. Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson)** > > Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech. > In the case, activist Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for burning an American flag during a protest outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, and was fined $2,000... Flag burning. If that arch-conservative John Paul Stevens had his way it would still be illegal to burn the flag, but Mr. Progressive Scalia saved the day. 🙂 There are actually quite a few cases where Scalia has ruled on the left side of the issue. As Bricker said, he is a textualist and his rulings go where the text leads him. He does not, as you suggest, have a predetermined outcome and try to fit it. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/45 "2014-04-26T15:25:21Z")
Do any of these cases where Scalia goes left negatively affect the economic prospects of powerful vested interests? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/46 "2014-04-26T15:33:01Z")
around here a lot of cars get stopped for having their license plate light not working and a search usually discovers several pounds of marijuana in the trunk. I’ve often wondered how the officer got that little light to stop working … was it before or after he stopped them? ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/47 "2014-04-26T16:11:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Even if the liberal result is not reached, these processes should be honored. The reason is obvious: the liberal result is not correct in the same way as the molecular composition of water is correctly described. These processes, that framework, represent our collective agreement about how to handle disputes in ideas of governance. > > Now, I readily admit that even those processes are not as well-defined as the composition of water. There is room for disagreement about the correct application of judicial philosophy. Yes, that’s well put, and I share your aversion to that kind of teleology, though I see an equal–maybe even greater–drawback to blind positivism about the process itself. There’s an annoying tendency in public discourse (and often on this board) to see the process as a means of determining some kind of absolute “truth” (the molecular composition of water, so to speak), rather than a collective agreement about how to handle disputes, (as you aptly describe it), and we can’t ignore the fact that those who do the handling naturally will have vested interests to one degree or another. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/48 "2014-04-26T16:29:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If I provide an anonymous tip (or identified really) that you in your car with your license plate ran me off the road does that provide reasonable suspicion? What if you in fact did not do any such thing? What if I make the same report on 100 cars? > > How are you using the term ‘reasonable suspicion’ that is satisfied by an anonymous tip? It isn’t “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”. An anonymous tip is not a set of articulable facts in any sense of how that should be used. In this case, there was zero basis to perform the traffic stop other than the tip. The police followed the target car for about 5 minutes without observing anything that would justify a traffic stop. > > If I provide a tip that my neighbor is running a meth lab in his house, the police may come by and knock on the door and ask to look around but without anything else to go on and without a warrant, my neighbor is free to tell them to go pound sand, or not answer the door at all. This case is analogous, except that now the police would be able to compel my neighbor to open the door for their conversation. You home is quite different from your car, I think home-based analogies are fundamentally inapt. We can better approach the question by comparing your car to your person, because both are mobile and both are capable of doing bad things. If someone calls in a guy in a red jacket and black trousers who appears to be prowling houses, the police will look for such a person and detain them on word, at least long enough to establish whether they should be arrested (as in taken for questioning). This is not significantly different from making a call about a car, other than the remote possibility that in the intervening time between the call and the apprehension, there might have been a change of drivers. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/49 "2014-04-26T16:51:09Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Do any of these cases where Scalia goes left negatively affect the economic prospects of powerful vested interests? [Yes.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/50 "2014-04-26T17:37:23Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > You home is quite different from your car, I think home-based analogies are fundamentally inapt. We can better approach the question by comparing your car to your person, because both are mobile and both are capable of doing bad things. > > If someone calls in a guy in a red jacket and black trousers who appears to be prowling houses, the police will look for such a person and detain them on word, at least long enough to establish whether they should be arrested (as in taken for questioning). This is not significantly different from making a call about a car, other than the remote possibility that in the intervening time between the call and the apprehension, there might have been a change of drivers. Yes, vehicles as analogies aren’t totally apt. If an officer approaches me on the street I will ask him if I’m being detained. If not they can go pound sand. Are you saying that an officer will be able to articulate why they are detaining me? No way should an anonymous tip on a person walking down the street give justification for detaining a person without other support. This would allow police to stop a person for any reason or no reason. “We got a report of a suspicious person, mind if I ask you some questions?” “Am I being detained?” “No, but I’d like to ask you some questions.” “Pound sand.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/51 "2014-04-26T18:14:43Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Do any of these cases where Scalia goes left negatively affect the economic prospects of powerful vested interests? > **[BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_of_North_America,_Inc._v._Gore)** > > BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. > The plaintiff, Dr. Ira Gore, bought a new BMW, and later discovered that the vehicle had been repainted before he bought it. Defendant BMW of North America revealed that their policy was to sell damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for less than 3% of the cost of the car. Dr. Gore sued, and an Alabama jur... Scalia refuses to hold that high punitive damages violate the constitution. In any event, why would someone holding a job with life tenure and financially secure be beholden to anyone? He could tell the whole world to go fuck off and it wouldn’t hurt him a bit. The idea that he is someone’s ideological slave lacks any merit at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/52 "2014-04-26T19:18:49Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > There’s 2 ways to answer that. One is they shouldn’t because it goes against their self interests. The other is that they should because it is the correct side. Given that I believe many conservatives either through ignorance, hatred, or vileness purposefully play to (or exaggerate) conservative biases as an act for nefarious reasons, I could objectively state that they should switch to the liberal side because a rising tide lifts all boats. There is precedent for changing sides if one believes something in error and changing would grant them benefits they believe their erroneous philosophy would provide I disagree that it goes against their self-interest. And I disagree it’s the correct side. So we have a conundrum: I want my conservative ideas to be adopted by government; you want your liberal ideas to be adopted by government. My guys own guns, by the way. I’m just sayin’… So rather than take to the streets in pitched battles for control of DC, we have made an agreement about how disputes in which policy to adopt are settled. Do you want to abandon that agreement? Because the system you’re proposing, the one in which only liberals get to make policy, is one that will never be adopted because there are enough opponents to it to scuttle it. It seems to me that you want to simply be proclaimed the ruling party, and in the absence of an official proclamation you’re going to proceed in your discussions as though it were true anyway, or at least as though it self-evidently SHOULD be true anyway. Neither proposition is provable objectively. So you’re asking your readers to accept a proposition that you’re absolutely convinced is the factual truth…but for which there is no possibility of objective, certain proof of truth. So if that’s permissible, let me tell you about God’s plan for you, and how His Son died on the cross for your sins and the sins of all mankind. Granted, I have no objective verifiable proof… but I don’t need it, right? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/53 "2014-04-27T14:43:53Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW\_of\_North\_America,\_Inc.\_v.\_Gore](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_of_North_America,_Inc._v._Gore) > > Scalia refuses to hold that high punitive damages violate the constitution. Thank you. And **Human Action** too. > [@](#): > > In any event, why would someone holding a job with life tenure and financially secure be beholden to anyone? He could tell the whole world to go fuck off and it wouldn’t hurt him a bit. The idea that he is someone’s ideological slave lacks any merit at all. I wasn’t thinking it was that simple. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/54 "2014-04-27T16:39:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree that it goes against their self-interest. > > And I disagree it’s the correct side. > > So we have a conundrum: I want my conservative ideas to be adopted by government; you want your liberal ideas to be adopted by government. > > My guys own guns, by the way. I’m just sayin’… > > So rather than take to the streets in pitched battles for control of DC, we have made an agreement about how disputes in which policy to adopt are settled. > > Do you want to abandon that agreement? Because the system you’re proposing, the one in which only liberals get to make policy, is one that will never be adopted because there are enough opponents to it to scuttle it. It seems to me that you want to simply be proclaimed the ruling party, and in the absence of an official proclamation you’re going to proceed in your discussions as though it were true anyway, or at least as though it self-evidently SHOULD be true anyway. Neither proposition is provable objectively. > > So you’re asking your readers to accept a proposition that you’re absolutely convinced is the factual truth…but for which there is no possibility of objective, certain proof of truth. > > So if that’s permissible, let me tell you about God’s plan for you, and how His Son died on the cross for your sins and the sins of all mankind. Granted, I have no objective verifiable proof… but I don’t need it, right? I’m certain that you have said that you wanted a Republican controlled Congress and President. That would be a country controlled by Republicans. How is wanting a country controlled by liberals any different? Congress doesn’t make laws based on objective truth, either. They make laws based on their own beliefs and the beliefs of their constituents. How is it wrong for me to want a supermajority to agree with my beliefs? If I believe I am right, why would I want the people who I believe are wrong to be in control? Yeah, politics and religion are quite similar in this respect. They are inherently belief-based. If politics were about facts, we wouldn’t need to vote. Politics is inherently devoid of objective truth. I don’t see why that should keep me from having a political viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/55 "2014-04-28T15:06:53Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > A car on a public road isn’t a private place subject to Fourth Amendment protections in the first place. I fail to see the problem with this ruling. The 4th Amendment protects PEOPLE not PLACES. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/56 "2014-04-28T15:11:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, this is not so. > > The search of your car requirements your consent, probable cause, a search warrant, or an exception such as exigent circumstances. RS can be sufficient for limited searches in some fact specific cases. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/57 "2014-04-28T17:30:51Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > RS can be sufficient for limited searches in some fact specific cases. A brief pat-down of the outer portions of clothes, sufficient to ensure officer safety, and only if the officer has reasonable suspicion that his safety is in danger. Is that what you mean? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/58 "2014-04-28T17:37:03Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I’m certain that you have said that you wanted a Republican controlled Congress and President. That would be a country controlled by Republicans. How is wanting a country controlled by liberals any different? I want a GOP-controlled Congress and White House, yes. but specifically: I want that result only because the GOP Congressional candidates win more votes in their districts/states than their rivals, and because the GOP Presidential candidate wins more electoral votes than his rival. In other words, I want the system to work. I would rather adhere to the system and have my guys lose than adopt the approach of supporting whatever standard happens to result in my guys winning. > [@](#): > > Congress doesn’t make laws based on objective truth, either. They make laws based on their own beliefs and the beliefs of their constituents. How is it wrong for me to want a supermajority to agree with my beliefs? If I believe I am right, why would I want the people who I believe are wrong to be in control? > > Yeah, politics and religion are quite similar in this respect. They are inherently belief-based. If politics were about facts, we wouldn’t need to vote. > > Politics is inherently devoid of objective truth. I don’t see why that should keep me from having a political viewpoint. Sure. The difference is that I’m rebutting the statement that only liberals should make rules. My view is that the rules should be followed, and I urge people to select conservatives under those rules. **Yogsooth** is advocating the slightly more extreme position that because liberals are correct, rules or no rules, they should be in charge. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/59 "2014-04-28T17:43:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you want to abandon that agreement? Because the system you’re proposing, the one in which only liberals get to make policy, is one that will never be adopted because there are enough opponents to it to scuttle it. It seems to me that you want to simply be proclaimed the ruling party, and in the absence of an official proclamation you’re going to proceed in your discussions as though it were true anyway, or at least as though it self-evidently SHOULD be true anyway. Neither proposition is provable objectively. Well again, there’s a couple ways to answer that. I could say that I took your question as an intellectual exercise and simply stated my idealized version of what should be. The way the question was phrased and the direction of this discussion is supportive of that, I think. Or I can say that in the real world, I know there’s a trade-off between things and that one will never get 100% of what one wants, and each one of us self limits in ways to get the best possible outcome realistically or ideally. It reminds me of some gun debates I’ve had where people say that they have to fight tooth and nail against every encroachment because people like me, gun banners, exist. But realistically, I wouldn’t not spend much time on guns at all, I’m content with some safety measures codified into law and that’s it. Because the battle to get to the point where I want to be, a total gun ban, is far too hard and long for me to fight and I’d rather spend my time on other things. In this real world then, I will vote and favor liberal ideas and not try to create a world where only liberals are allowed to make laws, because its too hard and unrealistic. But if I don’t have to spend too much time on it, I certainly would undercut any conservative movement taking place. Attack their ideas, their members, show and paint their supporters as crazy, whatever it takes that doesn’t take too long. Those things are easy. But you’d be surprised how much compromise I’m willing to make if I should ever be in government because I’m not a Tea Bagging fool who refuses to listen to the other side It doesn’t cost me a lot to sit here and rant against Scalia, so I’ll do it. Any small way I can undermine him in the eyes of people is a good thing, and if its also true, so much the better ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/60 "2014-04-28T17:56:19Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Any small way I can undermine him in the eyes of people is a good thing, and if its also true, so much the better But if you demonstrate a willingness to fabricate your complaints – or, more generously, if you demonstrate a lack of concern about the factual accuracy of your complaints – might that not ultimately hurt your overall mission by causing readers to distrust you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744.md?page=4)