To: dirtboy
Held:Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general
public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously
have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance
is a Fourth Amendment search, and is presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/case.html
41 posted on
02/28/2013 7:43:57 AM PST by
Mr Rogers
(America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
To: Mr Rogers
Held:Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment search, and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.And drug-sniffing dogs are also not in general public use, last I checked. SCOTUS contradicted its own precedent with this recent ruling.
45 posted on
02/28/2013 7:54:37 AM PST by
dirtboy
To: Mr Rogers
Held:Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment search, and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.And drug-sniffing dogs are also not in general public use, last I checked. SCOTUS contradicted its own precedent with this recent ruling.
46 posted on
02/28/2013 7:57:47 AM PST by
dirtboy
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson