• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


The 4th Amendment & warrantless searches

Invisible Man

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
3,771
SPLIT FROM: FISA reauthorization & Section 702 warrantless surveillance

https://twitter.com/GlennJacobsTN/status/1778857209985675750
0mYfzW4.png

The fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for searches.

Here is what it actually says:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for searches.

Here is what it actually says:

I actually think that's exactly what it is saying. Specifying "against unreasonable searches and seizures" implies there are some that are reasonable, hence follows the part about a warrant.
 
I actually think that's exactly what it is saying. Specifying "against unreasonable searches and seizures" implies there are some that are reasonable, hence follows the part about a warrant.

It does imply that there are some reasonable ones. But nowhere does it make the issuance of a warrant an inviolable criterion for a reasonable search or seizure. The way it separates those two points implies that some reasonable searches and seizures can happen without warrants. The criteria for the issuance of warrants only applies to cases where warrants are issued.
 
He'll keep that silly shit going for hours if you encourage him.

You've been warned.
 
The fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for searches.

Here is what it actually says:

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.

That's not what it says to me.

It says to me that a search without a valid warrant, is, prima facie an "unreasonable search".
 
If only it actually said that.

Keyword: “and” cited 3 times. There is no if, except, but or maybe.

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause… and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Invisible ManThe fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for searches.

Here is what it actually says:



I guess you are Illiterate Man.

Let's see what it really says, to wit:

"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."

It opens by acknowledging (not granting) one's just claim to be secure in one's property†... imagine that, against "unreasonable" search and seizure. In this day we almost reflexively retort with "well, what does 'unreasonable' really mean?" Now if we recall the old quote by Jefferson that quipped to the effect that free men must perforce be devoid of ignorance, and of good moral fabric, it can be justifiably stated that "reasonable" in this case was abundantly clear to the Framers, as well as the typical dullard of the time. it was obvious, as it now is to anyone with a spark of intelligence. They were, after all, living in the Age of Reason. Asking so pedantic a question as to the meaning of "reasonable" serves not so much to indicate our diligence of habit (though it might), as our lack of smarts on a question concerning an issue so basic, that even the most sadly ill-educated among us should still know the answer, even if only able to sense it tacitly.

I maintain that "reasonable" holds a meaning that is intuitively clear, obvious, and correct and that those who ask such questions are likely attempting to throw others off the scent of the truth. This isn't rocket surgery. Small children, if asked about such things, will show a clear and sufficient understanding of the notion that evidently escapes the grasp of far too many adults.

It is clear to me what it means. It should be equally so to the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans, and dare I say the rest of the human world as well.

It means that, barring very convincing evidence to suggest that a man has committed a FELONY, which is the only class of true crimes the commission of which could be a reasonable justification for the issuance of a warrant intended to interfere in his acknowledged right that says he is not to be violated in his privacy, nor is he to be made victim of theft and other crimes by the "state". Once again we see that this is not a matter of rocket surgery. no college degree needed, but just some basic sense.

Therefore, the semantic meat of the 4A is to acknowledge the preexistent and inherent right of people not just to property, but to explicitly acknowledge and hold sacred their natural and inherent moral immunity to "state" predation and other unwelcome and, dare I say it... unwarranted (ARF ARF ARF) interferences with one's private property and affairs (which are also property). The "state" MAY NOT. They are restricted; banned; circumscribed; bounded; limited; forbidden; prohibited; proscribed; inhibited; disallowed; debarred; embargoed.

The 4A then goes on to say that the only way a man's acknowledged and guaranteed right to, and innate security of, his property may be provisionally countervailed is if a warrant to a very specific effect and purpose has been issued by a valid authority to that end. It further states, if in a shorthand manner, that such warrants issue but on sworn affirmation of the veracity of the evidence offered as justification for the violation of the rights in question here. I will note that where it 4A fails is to specify the draconian punishments to be meted to all agents of the "state" for all willful failures to present to an issuing authority the truth of the evidence they present, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, pure as the driven snows. Similar punishments should be meted to those who, through incompetence or negligence, have caused warrants to issue which are proven unjustifiable. But I digress, pardon me please.

And so, to claim that no warrant is required is in fact and indeed gravely mistaken. The requirement is made clear by implication and cannot be denied, save through ignorance or malevolent intention.


† Yes ladies and gentlemen, the 4A implicitly acknowledges the right to private property, a notion that any child in possession of an IQ in the positive integers will readily grasp and acknowledge.
 
Keyword: “and” cited 3 times. There is no if, except, but or maybe.

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause… and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Exactly. Two separate things: 1. freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and 2. certain prerequisites to be met for warrants to be issued.
 
Exactly. Two separate things: 1. freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and 2. certain prerequisites to be met for warrants to be issued.

Any search without a warrant IS unreasonable.
The purpose of the warrant is to prove reasonableness.
 
Any search without a warrant IS unreasonable.
The purpose of the warrant is to prove reasonableness.

A search is always unreasonable until government says it is reasonable, then it's always reasonable?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A search is always unreasonable until government says it is reasonable, then it's always reasonable?
Nobody said warrants were always granted reasonably, but we do have to have them to enforce the law when the search is reasonable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be nice if the Constitution said what you say in your first sentence. It doesn't logically follow from your second one.

It does, you are as pathetic as the people who claim the 2ndA is about state militias because the first part states that a well regulated militia (well known to be composed of every able bodied man) was one of the purposes.

The 4thA states that the people are to be free of unreasonable searches, it then states the requirements for reasonable searches, the requirements are all about warrants.
 
It would be nice if the Constitution said what you say in your first sentence. It doesn't logically follow from your second one.

It absolutely follows. The entire purpose of requiring warrants is to ensure that the 4th Amendment is obeyed. Otherwise, the police can (and will) just make up any ol' yarn for why they "needed" to perform a search. It took 203 years for them to finally get a functioning bypass-switch installed to switch off the 4th Amendment. That bypass switch is FISA, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. The legislation had been written in the decade prior to 9/11 and was basically just sitting on congressional desks, a dead, tyrannical bill that could never pass. Until 9/11 happened. Then it was all passed, and much more besides. "Warrantless search" is a contradiction of the Constitution on its face. No "constitutional scholarship" is required. If an "unusual execution" bill was passed permitting drawing-and-quartering as a method of execution, no scholarship would be required to understand the contradiction. It's a contradiction of the Constitution on its face.
 
It absolutely follows. The entire purpose of requiring warrants is to ensure that the 4th Amendment is obeyed. Otherwise, the police can (and will) just make up any ol' yarn for why they "needed" to perform a search. It took 203 years for them to finally get a functioning bypass-switch installed to switch off the 4th Amendment. That bypass switch is FISA, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. The legislation had been written in the decade prior to 9/11 and was basically just sitting on congressional desks, a dead, tyrannical bill that could never pass. Until 9/11 happened. Then it was all passed, and much more besides. "Warrantless search" is a contradiction of the Constitution on its face. No "constitutional scholarship" is required. If an "unusual execution" bill was passed permitting drawing-and-quartering as a method of execution, no scholarship would be required to understand the contradiction. It's a contradiction of the Constitution on its face.

Nothing you said is true. Courts have always allowed some searches without warrants.

Courts have issued varying opinions about what constitutes reasonable and when warrants are required. But at no point have they held that there were absolutely no cases in which the Constitution allowed searches without warrants. This is not some new development of the 21st century.
 
Nothing you said is true. Courts have always allowed some searches without warrants.

Courts have issued varying opinions about what constitutes reasonable and when warrants are required. But at no point have they held that there were absolutely no cases in which the Constitution allowed searches without warrants. This is not some new development of the 21st century.

"Courts have always allowed some searches without warrants"

Wrong. Like every other erosion of the bill of rights, it has occurred slowly over time. Like the supposed "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exception to the 1st amendment, "hot pursuit" of a criminal was used to justify an exception to the 4th.

Erosion over time does not address the original intent, or meaning of the 4th amendment.

That being said, what is your point? Do you support FISA with no warrant requirements? Do you support violations of the 4th amendment as long as it is deemed "reasonable" by operatives of the current regime?
 
Back
Top