It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Granted there is no expectation of privacy in public...
History and Scope of the Amendment
History .--Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the ''writs of assistance.'' But while the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience, 1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. ''Every man's house is his castle'' was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne's Case, decided in 1603. 2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King's process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, 3 one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself. 4
Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive ''of all the comforts of society,'' and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' 5 Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a ''great judgment,'' ''one of the landmarks of English liberty,'' ''one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,'' and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment....
As noted above, the noteworthy disputes over search and seizure in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants. There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause. 11 This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute which has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest. 12 While the right to search the person of the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range is an interesting and crucial matter.
The Court has drawn a wavering line. 13 In Harris v. United States, 14 it approved as ''reasonable'' the warrantless search of a four-room apartment pursuant to the arrest of the man found there. A year later, however, a reconstituted Court majority set aside a conviction based on evidence seized by a warrantless search pursuant to an arrest and adopted the ''cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants wherever reasonably practicable.'' 15 This rule was set aside two years later by another reconstituted majority which adopted the premise that the test ''is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable.'' Whether a search is reasonable, the Court said, ''must find resolution in the facts and circumstances of each case.'' 16 However, the Court soon returned to its emphasis upon the warrant. ''The [Fourth] Amendment was in large part a reaction to the general warrants and warrantless searches that had so alienated the colonists and had helped speed the movement for independence. In the scheme of the Amendment, therefore, the requirement that 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,' plays a crucial part.'' 17 Therefore, ''the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through a warrant procedure.'' 18 Exceptions to searches under warrants were to be closely contained by the rationale undergirding the necessity for the exception, and the scope of a search under one of the exceptions was similarly limited.....
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by Amaterasu
C'mon! The 4th Amendment is out the door. ...
Originally posted by morder1
I am seriously scared for my Freedoms and liberty anymore... especially since i have "woken up" late last year... Just started reading 1984 myself... its funny all my parents, and people i know in their 50+ age all had to read that book in high school, but i had not even heard of it until a few months ago... Im about 130 pages into it, and holy crap is it scary... the scariest part is how TRUE it really is... heres a quote out of it, its the part i just finished reading... Really hits home
"In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird. "
Originally posted by UFOIogy
someday they'll scan people to get into sport events/stores/government buildings, pretty much everything
In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.
Reimburse you? why they think govt paid health care is gonna happen. If you are usefull you will get a warranty replacement...if not you are on your own: we're terribly sorry....
Originally posted by OneisOne
Besides the violation of privacy & the health issues, what about the damage that can be done to medical devices? If they start using covert Xray & my $7,500 insulin pump/realtime glucose monitor gets zapped and fails, is the TSA(DHS) gonna reimburse me for the cost?
What about other medical devices?
The TSA is one huge fail!edit on 3-3-2011 by OneisOne because: derr... TYPO!
Originally posted by Topato
To be honest I don't know what we're waiting for. What happened in Egypt needs to happen in the U.S. We have to realize that the true enemy is the banking cartel and federal reserve that pull the shadow government's strings.
We're not heading for classical tyranny, it's already here. We gotta get off our lazy asses and start the peaceful revolution of the people just like in Egypt and overthrow these gangsters!
(Sadly I still don't think this will happen until something more drastic FORCES people to do something)
Originally posted by Amaterasu
Originally posted by UFOIogy
someday they'll scan people to get into sport events/stores/government buildings, pretty much everything
Dear gods, let's hope we revolt before then!
Don't go to any place that scans people coming in, at the very least.
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Face it folks. In a free society...the way you keep it safe and free....is to take away the freedoms...to preserve them.