Replies

Apparently, all they need to do is add some biological sensing unit and it all becomes okay again.

No, IIRC the distinction is that they are not allowed to see into our houses without probable cause, regardless of what type of sensor is used.

No, IIRC the distinction is that they are not allowed to see into our houses without probable cause, regardless of what type of sensor is used.

So is this one of those "you have no rights in an automobile" rulings? I do recall that the Supreme Court has never been friendly to individual rights of anyone in a car.

What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, " are they missing? A car is certainly an effect, and is a portable abode (house). It can be thought of as an extension of the person.

No, IIRC the distinction is that they are not allowed to see into our houses without probable cause, regardless of what type of sensor is used.

64 posted on 01/24/2005 9:53:34 AM PST by Moonman62 (Republican - The political party for the living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Weeeeeeeeeell There you have it. Now you know why Jorge Arbusto wanted to enlist all those Public workers, electic meter readers, phone company employees, millions of service workes to report suspicious activities so the Jack booted Thugs could claim evidence of criminal activities and do a sealed search without your notification for 60-90 days AFTER the search.

Just like the Gestopo. Use snitches and cowards to turn in innocent people for the attention it gets them.