5 ms·

"Demands" is not a legally defined term. Let me demonstrate my premise from another perspective: suppose the government created a reporting requirement that req

"Demands" is not a legally defined term. Let me demonstrate my premise from another perspective: suppose the government created a reporting requirement that required you to divulge all your conversations with your mother yearly by April 20th. Would that be an unlawful search? If so, then how, qualitatively, is a requirement to divulge any other private information different? "Demand" for material details about your possessions and how you conduct your life is indistinguishable from a search. I'd say, if my premise is correct that it is a search, then demanding information without any tangible evidence of a crime is unreasonable. So whether it is reasonable or not is not a fruitful topic of discussion. The only thing that matters here is if reporting requirements qualify as a search. I think I've made a pretty compelling case that they do. By your logic, a cop could go get a warrant to search under your sheets for teddy bears. There must be tangible reason to believe a law was broken. You're not getting a warrant to search or probable cause to search on the grounds that someone is in possession of something lawful. Participation in commerce with ones neighbor is not activity under the purview of the federal government under the constitution. Only participating in commerce with someone in another state or country is under their purview, and even then, that only gives them the power to regulate the activity within the confines of the constitution. Mandatory reporting is not regulation of commercial activity. Requiring disclosure of private information under threat of civil or criminal penalty is a violation of the 4th. And 5th if that information is incriminating. You can declare "false" all you want, demanding private information is indistinguishable from a search.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> "Demands" is not a legally defined term. “Search” and “Seizure” are, and mandatory disclosures are neither. > suppose the government created a reporting requirement that required you to divulge all your conversations with your mother yearly by April 20th. Would that be an unlawful search? No, it would not be a search at all. It would be unconstitutional for the simple reason that it serves no function Congress is affirmatively empowered to do, but its not a search. If asking for iinformation under penalty was equivalent to a search, subpoenas (which are not warrants) would be Fourth Amendment violations, and every subpoena would have to instead be replaced with a warrant. > "Demand" for material details about your possessions and how you conduct your life is indistinguishable from a search. A search isn't a demand, a search is when the government accesses your property and looks for the things it want, not when it asks you to provide them. A search is what the government gets a warrant to do if they have evidence you aren’t complying with a legal demand for information or things (, the subpoena for Trump to turn over documents followed by the execution of a search and seizure warrant to look for and take them when the government had evidence that the former was not complied with.) They are very different things. > By your logic, a cop could go get a warrant to search under your sheets for teddy bears. They could, if there was probable cause to believe that (1) there were teddy bears there, and (2) the teddy bears there were evidence of some crime. Perhaps more to the point, though, the conditions under which the government could get a subpoena or other non-warrant order for me to turn over or disclose the existence of any teddy bears I have, though, would be much different—and not controlled by the 4th Amendment—than those for which they could get a search warrant. > You're not getting a warrant to search or probable cause to search on the grounds that someone is in possession of something lawful. Yes, you can: things can be in themselves lawful to possess, but also be evidence of a crime. > Participation in commerce with ones neighbor is not activity under the purview of the federal government under the constitution. Arguing that the Securities Exchange Act, or other laws supported by mandatory reporting requirements, are invalid in purpose outside of the reporting requirements and therefore that the reporting requirements have 10th Amendment issues is a different thing than arguing that the 4th Amendment prohibits mandatory reporting even if the underlying purpose of the law it supported was otherwise within Congress’ Constitutional authority. > Mandatory reporting is not regulation of commercial activity. A reporting requirement tied to a particular commercial activity is regulation of that activity. It may not be regulation that you prefer, but its definitely regulation of it. > Requiring disclosure of private information under threat of civil or criminal penalty is a violation of the 4th. No, it neither a search nor a seizure, so even if it is not reasonable (which, again, doesn't alaways require a warrant for actual searches), its not a violation of the 4th.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> "Demands" is not a legally defined term. “Search” and “Seizure” are, and mandatory disclosures are neither. > suppose the government created a reporting requirement that required you to divulge all your conversations with your mother yearly by April 20th. Would that be an unlawful search? No, it would not be a search at all. It would be unconstitutional for the simple reason that it serves no function Congress is affirmatively empowered to do, but its not a search. If asking for iinformation under penalty was equivalent to a search, subpoenas (which are not warrants) would be Fourth Amendment violations, and every subpoena would have to instead be replaced with a warrant. > "Demand" for material details about your possessions and how you conduct your life is indistinguishable from a search. A search isn't a demand, a search is when the government accesses your property and looks for the things it want, not when it asks you to provide them. A search is what the government gets a warrant to do if they have evidence you aren’t complying with a legal demand for information or things (, the subpoena for Trump to turn over documents followed by the execution of a search and seizure warrant to look for and take them when the government had evidence that the former was not complied with.) They are very different things. > By your logic, a cop could go get a warrant to search under your sheets for teddy bears. They could, if there was probable cause to believe that (1) there were teddy bears there, and (2) the teddy bears there were evidence of some crime. Perhaps more to the point, though, the conditions under which the government could get a subpoena or other non-warrant order for me to turn over or disclose the existence of any teddy bears I have, though, would be much different—and not controlled by the 4th Amendment—than those for which they could get a search warrant. > You're not getting a warrant to search or probable cause to search on the grounds that someone is in possession of something lawful. Yes, you can: things can be in themselves lawful to possess, but also be evidence of a crime. > Participation in commerce with ones neighbor is not activity under the purview of the federal government under the constitution. Arguing that the Securities Exchange Act, or other laws supported by mandatory reporting requirements, are invalid in purpose outside of the reporting requirements and therefore that the reporting requirements have 10th Amendment issues is a different thing than arguing that the 4th Amendment prohibits mandatory reporting even if the underlying purpose of the law it supported was otherwise within Congress’ Constitutional authority. > Mandatory reporting is not regulation of commercial activity. A reporting requirement tied to a particular commercial activity is regulation of that activity. It may not be regulation that you prefer, but its definitely regulation of it. > Requiring disclosure of private information under threat of civil or criminal penalty is a violation of the 4th. No, it neither a search nor a seizure, so even if it is not reasonable (which, again, doesn't alaways require a warrant for actual searches), its not a violation of the 4th.