6 ms·

> The Fourth Amendment is part of a document legally defining and describing... No disagreement there. But that doesn't mean that the document grants the right

by xnull 12y ago

> The Fourth Amendment is part of a document legally defining and describing... No disagreement there. But that doesn't mean that the document grants the right. It merely recognizes the rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... These rights are not granted by the United States. The United States cannot grant or take away natural rights. That's what they are and how they were intended to work.

rhino369 12y ago
They can hold those truths self evident, but it isn't self evident.
bediger4000 12y ago
A great opinion. I heartily endorse that opinion. But the FBI, and US DoJ, operate under some interpretation of the verbiage in the US Constitution. That interpretation has come to mean less and less protection against searches and seizures over the years, as the US Supreme Court interprets what the (to me) plain and simple language of the 4th amendment says.
anigbrowl 12y ago
The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution, you know. Also, there are limits on those rights. There's one example in the opinion; if the police somewhere else discover some incriminating information about you and voluntarily pass it along to American police, it is admissible regardless of whether the foreign investigation would have been valid under the 4th amendment if initiated by American law enforcement. As a simple example, imagine a drug bust in Thailand which would not be 4th amendment compliant turns up evidence that 50% of the money from the drug operation is always send to John Doe, who lives on 123 Main Street in Anytown, USA. The FBI duly arrests John Doe and he's charges with international drug trafficking. The Thai evidence is admissible notwithstanding the non-compliance of Thai investigative procedures with US law. This isn't meant to be an analogy for this case, BTW, just an illustration of one limiting case.

by xnull 12y ago

rhino369 12y ago

They can hold those truths self evident, but it isn't self evident.

bediger4000 12y ago

A great opinion. I heartily endorse that opinion. But the FBI, and US DoJ, operate under some interpretation of the verbiage in the US Constitution. That interpretation has come to mean less and less protection against searches and seizures over the years, as the US Supreme Court interprets what the (to me) plain and simple language of the 4th amendment says.

anigbrowl 12y ago

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution, you know. Also, there are limits on those rights. There's one example in the opinion; if the police somewhere else discover some incriminating information about you and voluntarily pass it along to American police, it is admissible regardless of whether the foreign investigation would have been valid under the 4th amendment if initiated by American law enforcement. As a simple example, imagine a drug bust in Thailand which would not be 4th amendment compliant turns up evidence that 50% of the money from the drug operation is always send to John Doe, who lives on 123 Main Street in Anytown, USA. The FBI duly arrests John Doe and he's charges with international drug trafficking. The Thai evidence is admissible notwithstanding the non-compliance of Thai investigative procedures with US law. This isn't meant to be an analogy for this case, BTW, just an illustration of one limiting case.