Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The police do not require a warrant to search anyplace outside the 4 walls of your home. They do have to have one to search in your home- even passively from outside your home. However anything outside the 4 walls of your home including the garbage you put outdoors can be searched by the police.
It's not the 4 walls of your home, it's your cartilage. Further, by that logic, the police don't need a warrant to search private property that is non-residential - however, they do need a warrant.
A person has an expectation of privacy under Katz when: They have a subjective expectation of privacy, and society recognizes it. Now, when it comes to searches, the police almost always need a warrant to search, save for a few exceptions - namely exigence, consent, and plain view (and car searches).
Once upon a time, our right to privacy was based purely on where we were, that is no longer the case. The Katz case was about how the FBI bugged a phone booth used by a bookie - they did so without a warrant, and the court found that to be a violation of the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
I already posted a link to the Kyllo case in this very thread - for some reason, the conspiracy theorists weren't swayed...
Did you see the part that says search without knowledge of the owner?
Where does the Fourth Amendment say the owner of the property being searched must be notified? You might want to actually read the Fourth Amendment, and get a clue.
Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
The USAPATRIOT Act does not violate any part of the US Constitution, even the ACLU admits this. You are simply an idiot.
Where does the Fourth Amendment say the owner of the property being searched must be notified? You might want to actually read the Fourth Amendment, and get a clue.
Hell, if you want to be a strict constitutionalist, it might be worth noting that the 4th amendment only requires probable cause (and particularity) for search and arrest warrants - it doesn't say anything about warrantless searches.
It's not the 4 walls of your home, it's your cartilage. Further, by that logic, the police don't need a warrant to search private property that is non-residential - however, they do need a warrant.
Not true. If law enforcement has probable cause that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or will be committed, then no warrant is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
person has an expectation of privacy under Katz when: They have a subjective expectation of privacy, and society recognizes it. Now, when it comes to searches, the police almost always need a warrant to search, save for a few exceptions - namely exigence, consent, and plain view (and car searches).
Once upon a time, our right to privacy was based purely on where we were, that is no longer the case. The Katz case was about how the FBI bugged a phone booth used by a bookie - they did so without a warrant, and the court found that to be a violation of the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
I already posted a link to the Kyllo case in this very thread - for some reason, the conspiracy theorists weren't swayed...
Wrong again, the Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with any "right to privacy." The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." It says absolutely nothing about "privacy."
If law enforcement is going to search your person, house(s), papers, and effects then they must have 1) Probable Cause; or 2) A Court-Issued Warrant. Otherwise, as in the Kyllo v. US case you cited, the evidence is not admissible under the Exclusionary Rule.
No drones do not have the ability to look through walls into buildings. They cannot even see through clouds. With night vision FLIR they have very limited capabilities even in dark. And even if drones could see through walls, a warrant would be required.
You are incorrect regarding drone's abilities.
You place a lot of trust in a government that has proven itself to be extremely untrustworthy.
It's not the 4 walls of your home, it's your cartilage. Further, by that logic, the police don't need a warrant to search private property that is non-residential - however, they do need a warrant.
A person has an expectation of privacy under Katz when: They have a subjective expectation of privacy, and society recognizes it. Now, when it comes to searches, the police almost always need a warrant to search, save for a few exceptions - namely exigence, consent, and plain view (and car searches).
Once upon a time, our right to privacy was based purely on where we were, that is no longer the case. The Katz case was about how the FBI bugged a phone booth used by a bookie - they did so without a warrant, and the court found that to be a violation of the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
I already posted a link to the Kyllo case in this very thread - for some reason, the conspiracy theorists weren't swayed...
No actually they do not need a warrant to search areas open to the public. If I open a store and sell drug paraphernalia and I have my pipes, bongs and grow lights openly displayed, the police do not need a warrant. If I keep them all locked up in a back room, they would need a warrant.
Not true. If law enforcement has probable cause that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or will be committed, then no warrant is required.
Wrong again, the Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with any "right to privacy." The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." It says absolutely nothing about "privacy."
If law enforcement is going to search your person, house(s), papers, and effects then they must have 1) Probable Cause; or 2) A Court-Issued Warrant. Otherwise, as in the Kyllo v. US case you cited, the evidence is not admissible under the Exclusionary Rule.
You are right. There is no "right to privacy". Lots of people think there is but it does not exist.
Not true. If law enforcement has probable cause that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or will be committed, then no warrant is required.
That's funny, I could have sworn I said ...the police almost always need a warrant to search, save for a few exceptions - namely exigence, consent, and plain view (and car searches). Oh, I did, you even quoted me on that!
Wrong again, the Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with any "right to privacy." The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." It says absolutely nothing about "privacy."
If law enforcement is going to search your person, house(s), papers, and effects then they must have 1) Probable Cause; or 2) A Court-Issued Warrant. Otherwise, as in the Kyllo v. US case you cited, the evidence is not admissible under the Exclusionary Rule.
Um, in order for the government to even be required to need a search warrant to conduct a search, a person has to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place to be searched. The 4th amendment doesn't say anything about a lot of stuff. Like I said, the 4th amendment doesn't say anything about the government needing probable cause to make a warrantless arrest - but the USSC does require that. It doesn't say anything about the police needing probable cause for a warrantless search - but the USSC does require that (with exceptions, of course. So, I wouldn't rely solely on the text of the 4th, it's a bit vague, and the courts have interpreted it over the years.
So, perhaps you saw "expectation of privacy," and confused that with "right of privacy." Which we do now have, but that's sort of a penumbra type of deal.
Further, even if the police have probable cause, often times they still need a warrant for search and seizure (not for arrests).
Per Wikipedia:
Quote:
The expectation of privacy is crucial to distinguishing a legitimate, reasonable police search and seizure from an unreasonable one.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.
Last edited by rimmerama; 12-13-2011 at 07:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
