3 ms·

>There's a misconception that the 4th Amendment requires warrants for all searches. It does not: it requires reasonableness (which is code for "a judge agrees w

>There's a misconception that the 4th Amendment requires warrants for all searches. It does not: it requires reasonableness (which is code for "a judge agrees with it"). Isn't the documentation of "a judge agrees with it," just a warrant signed by a judge? The exceptions that I can think of are: Probable cause of a crime and this only applies to person/vehicle in public. It's publicly visible I believe domiciles have the highest standard of searching, meaning it requires a warrant every time.

tptacek 4y ago
A warrant signed by a magistrate is one of several ways that courts assent to searches. Again, at the time of the founders, a warrant was a tool of harassment, not a privacy protection. Domiciles are also subject to search incident to arrest, which do not require warrants.
btilly 4y ago
> Isn't the documentation of "a judge agrees with it," just a warrant signed by a judge? Nope. You want to go through the US border. Everyone gets searched for customs/contraband. These are reasonable searches, no warrant is required. You want to get on an airplane. Everyone gets TSA screening, including a search. These are reasonable searches, no warrant is required. You want to get a security clearance. You agree to the requirement of random searches of your house for evidence that you shouldn't have such a trusted position. Since you've agreed in advance, no warrant is required. You can go complain to a judge about these, and people have. Judges have consistently ruled that since the search is reasonable, the 4th amendment is no bar to those searches.
- Clubber 4y ago
  I think the difference is those lean more to the consensual side, meaning you are choosing to do those things, like driving. You give up a lot of rights when you drive. It could be argued that those things are required to live in modern times, but I digress. I thinking of nonconsensual searches and the 4th amendment.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    There's nothing in the Constitution about "consensual" and "nonconsensual" searches, but border crossings at the time of the founders were subject to warrantless searches.
  - btilly 4y ago
    They are only consensual in that, "If you don't want to be searched, you don't get to do the thing that you wanted to do." But no, the criterion really is reasonableness, and not consent. If you're arrested, your person WILL be searched. They WILL NOT need a warrant. And nobody will care whether or not you consented to this. Because it is reasonable to search a prisoner for weapons, lockpicks, and other ways that the prisoner might try to contest imprisonment.

tptacek 4y ago

A warrant signed by a magistrate is one of several ways that courts assent to searches. Again, at the time of the founders, a warrant was a tool of harassment, not a privacy protection. Domiciles are also subject to search incident to arrest, which do not require warrants.

btilly 4y ago

> Isn't the documentation of "a judge agrees with it," just a warrant signed by a judge? Nope. You want to go through the US border. Everyone gets searched for customs/contraband. These are reasonable searches, no warrant is required. You want to get on an airplane. Everyone gets TSA screening, including a search. These are reasonable searches, no warrant is required. You want to get a security clearance. You agree to the requirement of random searches of your house for evidence that you shouldn't have such a trusted position. Since you've agreed in advance, no warrant is required. You can go complain to a judge about these, and people have. Judges have consistently ruled that since the search is reasonable, the 4th amendment is no bar to those searches.

Clubber 4y ago
I think the difference is those lean more to the consensual side, meaning you are choosing to do those things, like driving. You give up a lot of rights when you drive. It could be argued that those things are required to live in modern times, but I digress. I thinking of nonconsensual searches and the 4th amendment.
- tptacek 4y ago
  There's nothing in the Constitution about "consensual" and "nonconsensual" searches, but border crossings at the time of the founders were subject to warrantless searches.
- btilly 4y ago
  They are only consensual in that, "If you don't want to be searched, you don't get to do the thing that you wanted to do." But no, the criterion really is reasonableness, and not consent. If you're arrested, your person WILL be searched. They WILL NOT need a warrant. And nobody will care whether or not you consented to this. Because it is reasonable to search a prisoner for weapons, lockpicks, and other ways that the prisoner might try to contest imprisonment.