Searches Without Warrants approved

[11001001]

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.

[OverdueSpy]

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.

[11001001]

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.