5 ms·
I'm of the opinion they should have access to absolutely nothing without a warrant issued by a judge. And that the warrant needs to be lawfully issued based on
by oceanplexian 4y ago
I'm of the opinion they should have access to absolutely nothing without a warrant issued by a judge. And that the warrant needs to be lawfully issued based on probable cause that a crime has been committed, for a specific person, to search a specific account at a specific time and place.
Back in the day this "extreme" was called the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. But law enforcement doesn't respect the highest law of the land, and neither do the courts, and neither does the government. IMHO that makes the whole lot of them criminals.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
- throwntoday 4y ago
- krapp 4y agoIt's funny how Americans keep parroting this nonsense while their liberties are constantly and arbitrarily abused by their government all the time, despite being armed to the teeth.
- systemvoltage 4y ago2A is a last measure. I’m glad it’s that way.
- throwntoday 4y agoThings would have to get really bad for enough people before another revolution is the most logical answer. I don't know why you think owning a gun means wanting to use it. Someone who isn't a sociopath would look for every reason not to.
- formerkrogemp 4y agoThat's a good point.
- DubiousPusher 4y agoThis was meant as a joke regardimg the media discourse obsessing over basically the first 2 amendments and ignoring the rest. I'm particularly disturbed by the post 9/11 disregard for the 4th amendmemt. Three hop surveilance is an abomination. I'm a big fan of the entire bill of rights and believe in their interpretation as concrete, specific and personal. This includes the 2nd.
- kbenson 4y agoI totally support that. There's a difference between "need a warrant" and "squirreled away where a warrant can't even get it". I think needing a warrant is a sane middle ground, but I also thinkg requiring things be accessible by warrant is also a sane middle ground.
- lazide 4y agoHuh? Like you aren’t allowed to bury something in your backyard if you want? What’s that about?
- 7steps2much 4y agoI am pretty sure that a court could order your backyard to be excavated if it believed something important buried there. That said, hiding evidence from law enforcement/money from the tax authorities is a crime anyways, regardless of where you hide it.
- lazide 4y agoActually, no they are not, generally. There is no duty to provide evidence of a crime to law enforcement in the US, anyway - merely to comply with warrants or the like, if issued. There is a difference. It is also not illegal to hide money - just illegal to not pay taxes due. There is also a difference there too.
- kbenson 4y agoWarrants cover everything in the U.S. I'm referring more to people that shove their money into offshore accounts designed to be hard to locate and examine. Think the cayman islands, the panama papers, etc. Physical money already has to be declared if over a threshold and moved across borders, and I don't have a problem with any amount of cash kept wherever locally. If it's illegal in some way there are methods to find it. The goal isn't to lock all money down and infringe on personal rights, it's to keep it from being hidden and untaxed en masse by many very rich entities.
- m463 4y ago> opinion others have had this opinion, and it's short and sweet: 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. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/