Searches Without Warrants approved - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Searches Without Warrants approved

  1. #21
    BS, EnCE, ACE, Cellebrite 11001001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Just West of Beantown, though nobody from Beantown actually calls it "Beantown."
    Posts
    1,228
    So, can anyone tell me how this law is not unconstitutional?

    Originally posted in the US Constitution
    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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.

    That's Officer 11001001 to you...
    Now you see me | Now you don't
    "Relax, Bender; It was just a dream. There's no such thing as two." ~ Fry
    sometimes my computer goes down on me

  2. #22
    Senior Member OverdueSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    556
    Originally posted here by 11001001
    So, can anyone tell me how this law is not unconstitutional?
    I'm a little confused here. The statement "not unconstitutional" is kind of a double negative. Are you asking if anyone thinks that the court's decision was constitutionaly sound? My personal view is no, and the decision was not constitutionally sound. Not trying to poke fun or anything, I just need some clarification.
    The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!

  3. #23
    BS, EnCE, ACE, Cellebrite 11001001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Just West of Beantown, though nobody from Beantown actually calls it "Beantown."
    Posts
    1,228
    Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
    I'm a little confused here. The statement "not unconstitutional" is kind of a double negative. Are you asking if anyone thinks that the court's decision was constitutionaly sound? My personal view is no, and the decision was not constitutionally sound. Not trying to poke fun or anything, I just need some clarification.
    Basically, the fourth amendment guarantees your protection against illegal searches and seizures.


    What this means:

    No one can perform a search and/or seizure on you or your property without the issuance of a search warrant.

    No one can get a search warrant without a damned good reason, and "probable cause" to back it up.


    So, by eliminating the need for cops to obtain a search warrant in order to search you or your property, the legislature is essentially nullifying the fourth amendment.

    Yeas, in the long run, I am saying that I agree with you. That the new law is in fact unconstitutional.

    I hope that helps.
    That's Officer 11001001 to you...
    Now you see me | Now you don't
    "Relax, Bender; It was just a dream. There's no such thing as two." ~ Fry
    sometimes my computer goes down on me

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides