Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment IV


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Aside from any room for interpretation of the word “unreasonable” Amendment IV is pretty simple:

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.

Our government and its officers have no right or authority to seize our persons, houses, papers, or effects without cause supported by a claim of the particulars of who or what may be seized and where the seizure may occur.

By David

David is the father of 8 children. When he's not busy with that full time occupation he works as a technology professional. He enjoys discussing big issues with informed people, cooking, gardening, vexillology (flag design), and tinkering.

6 replies on “Constitutional Amendment IV”

Is having a black and white image of your, your wife’s, your child’s, or your grandmother’s naked body viewed by a TSA government contractor as a condition of commercial air travel — all in the name of national security — an unreasonable search? The government doesn’t think so.

I consider it to be an unreasonable search. Those body image scanners should be absolutely limited to optional secondary search – in other words I do not object to the TSA using those as an option that travelers may choose to use in lieu of a pat-down. Any requirement that travelers submit to those machines is an unreasonable search.

The pat-downs are threatened every time some level of probable cause is established (when someone sets off the metal detectors) plus each time someone is “randomly picked” for enhanced screening (which would violate the principle of “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”).

I wish I knew the statistics, but I would be surprised if the pat-downs turned out to be warranted once in every 1000 times they are conducted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *