4 ms·

I can't speak to that. What I can say is that this activity is absolutely illegal according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What I can say is that this activity is absolutely illegal according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States The problem with this statement is it's historically inaccurate. Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. (Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.) The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.
- timewizard 2y ago
  > is it's historically inaccurate. Not at all. It's the 4th Amendment. It's particularly clear on this point. Perhaps "historically inaccurate" is not the phrase you meant to use. You might also notice that the CIA itself believes these activities were and are illegal. See "Project HTLINGUAL." > Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. They get warrants first or they are, in fact, committing a crime. It is, admittedly, a difficult crime to prosecute, but further evidence against your phrasing is that this is in fact a crime that does get charged. > Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground. Owning land is not at all a distinction. "Persons, Houses, Papers and Effects" are. That land is not a part of this enumerated list is actually a particular point in the enforcement of this law and creates a "plainly visible" standard that is applied by courts. > The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal. It's illegal. Full stop. Vagaries of enforcement are not material to this point.
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    It wasn’t until the 1960s that the searches that violated the 4th amendment were excluded in non-federal contexts. Mapp v Ohio is one of the most landmark cases in 4th amendment law and the ruling came down in 1961. So when someone tells you that your maximalist interpretation isn’t historically accurate, they aren’t harkening back to colonial era rules.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      (To be clear for everyone else: at the federal level, the exclusionary rule dates back to the turn of the 20th century and builds on cases from the late 19th century [Boyd v US is I think one of the big ones], and, I think it's important to keep in mind, we're talking about a period of time during which the Bill of Rights itself was just beginning to be formally incorporated on the states).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> What I can say is that this activity is absolutely illegal according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States The problem with this statement is it's historically inaccurate. Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. (Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.) The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.

timewizard 2y ago
> is it's historically inaccurate. Not at all. It's the 4th Amendment. It's particularly clear on this point. Perhaps "historically inaccurate" is not the phrase you meant to use. You might also notice that the CIA itself believes these activities were and are illegal. See "Project HTLINGUAL." > Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. They get warrants first or they are, in fact, committing a crime. It is, admittedly, a difficult crime to prosecute, but further evidence against your phrasing is that this is in fact a crime that does get charged. > Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground. Owning land is not at all a distinction. "Persons, Houses, Papers and Effects" are. That land is not a part of this enumerated list is actually a particular point in the enforcement of this law and creates a "plainly visible" standard that is applied by courts. > The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal. It's illegal. Full stop. Vagaries of enforcement are not material to this point.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  It wasn’t until the 1960s that the searches that violated the 4th amendment were excluded in non-federal contexts. Mapp v Ohio is one of the most landmark cases in 4th amendment law and the ruling came down in 1961. So when someone tells you that your maximalist interpretation isn’t historically accurate, they aren’t harkening back to colonial era rules.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    (To be clear for everyone else: at the federal level, the exclusionary rule dates back to the turn of the 20th century and builds on cases from the late 19th century [Boyd v US is I think one of the big ones], and, I think it's important to keep in mind, we're talking about a period of time during which the Bill of Rights itself was just beginning to be formally incorporated on the states).