4 ms·

> You're presupposing there's a valid argument for the other side. How about this part of the amendment? > "The right of the people to be secure in their pers

> You're presupposing there's a valid argument for the other side. How about this part of the amendment? > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated" Isn't treating people like suspects (investigating them, searching their belongings, tracking them, etc.) merely because a third party claimed (and of course GPS is never inaccurate) that they passed within some vague proximity of a crime scene a violation of their security in their persons? Do you really have reasonable suspicion that every individual among the dozens (or more) you dragged into your search may have committed a crime if it's clear the others are there for unrelated reasons?

rayiner 5mo ago
Treating people like potential suspects isn't a "search" of their "persons" (bodies), "houses, papers, and effects." How would it even work if police needed a warrant to even consider someone as a suspect and investigate them?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- dataflow 5mo ago
  You understand "being secure in your person" is not merely "I don't get physically touched", right? If I stalked you every day without ever touching you, you wouldn't feel so secure in your person, would you? If I was a police officer, you still wouldn't feel so secure, would you? If you knew I was doing this remotely instead of in-person, by monitoring you over video cameras across the city and tracking all your moves with your own GPS devices, you surely wouldn't feel so secure, would you? People (maybe not you, but most humans) feel threatened when all their moves are being tracked. There's an implicit threat of physical harm even if it hasn't occurred thus far. Not to mention there's also the risk of a bad actor (read: including law enforcement insider) stealing your tracking data that was supposedly only ever being used for good. It's a real threat to your security, and you have a right to be secure. If another person is going to threaten a free person's security, they sure as hell need both the legal authority and reasonable suspicion of a crime. That is the amendment. Where to draw the line for "reasonable" here can vary somewhat, but I think most people would agree that if you have 3 people all in close proximity to a crime, you could justify having reasonable suspicion of each individual of being involved. If you have a hundred people walking in a half-mile radius, you clearly don't. Idk where the line exactly is, and circumstances can affect things, but somewhere between those seems like a reasonable place to start.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    You used the word "feel" four times in your post, but it appears zero times in the fourth amendment: > "The right of the people [1] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [2] 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 clause labeled [2] limits the scope of the clause labeled [1]. It's not a free-floating right to "feel secure" against anything--people following you, etc. It's a right "to be secure in [your] person" "against" a specific intrusion: "unreasonable searches and seizures." If it said: "you have a right not to be mauled by lions," that wouldn't mean you have a right not to be eaten by hippos. Much less that you have a right not to "feel" threatened by the prospect of being eaten by hippos.
    - dataflow 5mo ago
      > You used the word "feel" four times in your post, but it appears zero times in the fourth amendment. The clause labeled [2] limits the scope of the clause labeled [1]. It's not a free-floating right to "feel secure" against anything--people following you, etc. It's a right "to be secure in [your] person" "against" a specific intrusion: "unreasonable searches and seizures." It the word "feel" distracted you from the underlying point. First: "being secure in your person" does mean to include feelings as well as actual harm (“protected from... danger” as well as "free from fear"). See [1] for example. I am approximately 99% sure the authors of that amendment would have felt that government officials following them around would have directly violated that amendment, and I would be shocked to hear you're actually arguing otherwise. (Are you?) Second: you're either misunderstanding or completely ignoring the actual physical danger here. Again, I refer you to my previous question, which you did not address: if I was stalking you 24/7, would you say you ARE secure in your person/effects/etc.? If other people claimed you ARE secure, would you agree with them? Would it change if I was a police officer? Are you seriously going to argue that my stalking is only impacting your feelings regarding your security, not your actual security? [1] https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/the-right-to-be-secure-the-foundation-of-the-fourth-amendment/ https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/the-r...

rayiner 5mo ago

Treating people like potential suspects isn't a "search" of their "persons" (bodies), "houses, papers, and effects." How would it even work if police needed a warrant to even consider someone as a suspect and investigate them?

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
dataflow 5mo ago
You understand "being secure in your person" is not merely "I don't get physically touched", right? If I stalked you every day without ever touching you, you wouldn't feel so secure in your person, would you? If I was a police officer, you still wouldn't feel so secure, would you? If you knew I was doing this remotely instead of in-person, by monitoring you over video cameras across the city and tracking all your moves with your own GPS devices, you surely wouldn't feel so secure, would you? People (maybe not you, but most humans) feel threatened when all their moves are being tracked. There's an implicit threat of physical harm even if it hasn't occurred thus far. Not to mention there's also the risk of a bad actor (read: including law enforcement insider) stealing your tracking data that was supposedly only ever being used for good. It's a real threat to your security, and you have a right to be secure. If another person is going to threaten a free person's security, they sure as hell need both the legal authority and reasonable suspicion of a crime. That is the amendment. Where to draw the line for "reasonable" here can vary somewhat, but I think most people would agree that if you have 3 people all in close proximity to a crime, you could justify having reasonable suspicion of each individual of being involved. If you have a hundred people walking in a half-mile radius, you clearly don't. Idk where the line exactly is, and circumstances can affect things, but somewhere between those seems like a reasonable place to start.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  You used the word "feel" four times in your post, but it appears zero times in the fourth amendment: > "The right of the people [1] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [2] 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 clause labeled [2] limits the scope of the clause labeled [1]. It's not a free-floating right to "feel secure" against anything--people following you, etc. It's a right "to be secure in [your] person" "against" a specific intrusion: "unreasonable searches and seizures." If it said: "you have a right not to be mauled by lions," that wouldn't mean you have a right not to be eaten by hippos. Much less that you have a right not to "feel" threatened by the prospect of being eaten by hippos.
  - dataflow 5mo ago
    > You used the word "feel" four times in your post, but it appears zero times in the fourth amendment. The clause labeled [2] limits the scope of the clause labeled [1]. It's not a free-floating right to "feel secure" against anything--people following you, etc. It's a right "to be secure in [your] person" "against" a specific intrusion: "unreasonable searches and seizures." It the word "feel" distracted you from the underlying point. First: "being secure in your person" does mean to include feelings as well as actual harm (“protected from... danger” as well as "free from fear"). See [1] for example. I am approximately 99% sure the authors of that amendment would have felt that government officials following them around would have directly violated that amendment, and I would be shocked to hear you're actually arguing otherwise. (Are you?) Second: you're either misunderstanding or completely ignoring the actual physical danger here. Again, I refer you to my previous question, which you did not address: if I was stalking you 24/7, would you say you ARE secure in your person/effects/etc.? If other people claimed you ARE secure, would you agree with them? Would it change if I was a police officer? Are you seriously going to argue that my stalking is only impacting your feelings regarding your security, not your actual security? [1] https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/the-right-to-be-secure-the-foundation-of-the-fourth-amendment/ https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/the-r...