4 ms·

Isn't the US Constitution the highest law in the US? The Fourth clearly states people should be secure from search or seizure of their personal effects and pape

Isn't the US Constitution the highest law in the US? The Fourth clearly states people should be secure from search or seizure of their personal effects and papers, which obviously extends to electronic devices. So my question is, shouldn't there be extroardinary consequences for breaking laws such as these? Why does it appear so easy for government to get away with this? Is it a really bad thing thay constitutional rights are being easily trampeled on? It seems like a bad deal to me.

ENOTTY 9y ago
The short answer is that the Fourth Amendment isn't actually all that clear, and that it's up to judges, lawyers, politicians, and citizens to figure out how it applies in different situations.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Which part do you find to be unclear? It looks pretty clear to me. What if I asked about Guantanamo, the NSA, or wars without approval of congress? Are all of these failures of our Gov to observe our constitution issues of some kind of lack in clarity?
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    > Which part do you find to be unclear? Fourth Amendment: > 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. The word "unreasonable" in "unreasonable searches and seizures" introduces a full hectare of gray area.
manfredo 9y ago
The Supreme Court has determined that the 4th Amendment has lesser protections at borders.[1] Border patrol has the ability to search your containers , and perform non-invasive body searches without any degree of suspicion, for instance. More invasive searches, like cavity searches and involuntary body x-rays require a degree of suspicion. Whether electronic searches fall under the first category or the latter is what this lawsuit may determine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
int_19h 9y ago
4A says "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". The exact definition of "unreasonable" is subject to interpretation by the executive agencies and the courts. Search at the border for the purposes of detecting contraband has been considered reasonable from the moment Constitution was in force. Right now, we're finding just how far this can be stretched.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >Search at the border for the purposes of detecting contraband has been considered reasonable from the moment Constitution was in force. Is this really true, though? Would you be able to provide a sourced example of this -- Searching a person's personal effects and papers at the border, ideally in a case that went to the courts?
  - int_19h 9y ago
    It is generally assumed to follow from the fact that the United States Customs Service was established back in 1789, and its duties, from the very beginning, involved dealing with contraband. I poked around a bit, and while the first SCOTUS decision addressing this head on seems to be from 1977, it goes into more detail: "That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration. The Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789, 1 Stat. 97, had, some two months prior to that proposal, enacted the first customs statute, Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29. Section 24 of this statute granted customs officials "full power and authority" to enter and search "any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed . . . ." This acknowledgment of plenary customs power was differentiated from the more limited power to enter and search "any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place . . ." where a warrant upon "cause to suspect" was required. The historical importance of the enactment of this customs statute by the same Congress which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest. This Court so concluded almost a century ago. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 623 (1886), this Court observed: "The seizure of stolen goods is authorized by the common law; and the seizure of goods forfeited for a breach of the revenue laws, or concealed to avoid the duties payable on them, has been authorized by English statutes for at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been authorized by our own revenue acts from the commencement of the government. The first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, the act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43, contains provisions to this effect. As this act was passed by the same Congress which proposed for adoption the original amendments to the Constitution, it is clear that the members of that body did not regard searches and seizures of this kind as `unreasonable,' and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the amendment." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6107136132398268257 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=610713613239826...)

ENOTTY 9y ago

The short answer is that the Fourth Amendment isn't actually all that clear, and that it's up to judges, lawyers, politicians, and citizens to figure out how it applies in different situations.

wallace_f 9y ago
Which part do you find to be unclear? It looks pretty clear to me. What if I asked about Guantanamo, the NSA, or wars without approval of congress? Are all of these failures of our Gov to observe our constitution issues of some kind of lack in clarity?
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  > Which part do you find to be unclear? Fourth Amendment: > 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. The word "unreasonable" in "unreasonable searches and seizures" introduces a full hectare of gray area.

manfredo 9y ago

The Supreme Court has determined that the 4th Amendment has lesser protections at borders.[1] Border patrol has the ability to search your containers , and perform non-invasive body searches without any degree of suspicion, for instance. More invasive searches, like cavity searches and involuntary body x-rays require a degree of suspicion. Whether electronic searches fall under the first category or the latter is what this lawsuit may determine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

int_19h 9y ago

4A says "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". The exact definition of "unreasonable" is subject to interpretation by the executive agencies and the courts. Search at the border for the purposes of detecting contraband has been considered reasonable from the moment Constitution was in force. Right now, we're finding just how far this can be stretched.

wallace_f 9y ago
>Search at the border for the purposes of detecting contraband has been considered reasonable from the moment Constitution was in force. Is this really true, though? Would you be able to provide a sourced example of this -- Searching a person's personal effects and papers at the border, ideally in a case that went to the courts?
- int_19h 9y ago
  It is generally assumed to follow from the fact that the United States Customs Service was established back in 1789, and its duties, from the very beginning, involved dealing with contraband. I poked around a bit, and while the first SCOTUS decision addressing this head on seems to be from 1977, it goes into more detail: "That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration. The Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789, 1 Stat. 97, had, some two months prior to that proposal, enacted the first customs statute, Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29. Section 24 of this statute granted customs officials "full power and authority" to enter and search "any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed . . . ." This acknowledgment of plenary customs power was differentiated from the more limited power to enter and search "any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place . . ." where a warrant upon "cause to suspect" was required. The historical importance of the enactment of this customs statute by the same Congress which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest. This Court so concluded almost a century ago. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 623 (1886), this Court observed: "The seizure of stolen goods is authorized by the common law; and the seizure of goods forfeited for a breach of the revenue laws, or concealed to avoid the duties payable on them, has been authorized by English statutes for at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been authorized by our own revenue acts from the commencement of the government. The first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, the act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43, contains provisions to this effect. As this act was passed by the same Congress which proposed for adoption the original amendments to the Constitution, it is clear that the members of that body did not regard searches and seizures of this kind as `unreasonable,' and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the amendment." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6107136132398268257 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=610713613239826...)