If the state has a compelling reason, they may apply the law unequally. Do you disagree? If you do, tell me why. If you don't disagree, stop bringing up this "group" crap of yours again and again and again.
"The activities could still be illegal, but you are protected until a warrant breaks into that protection."
Let's try this. The cops have a valid, constituional warrant to search your house for child porn. They enter your home and see two homosexuals engaging in anal sex right there on your couch.
Under our current laws, the two homosexuals cannot be arrested and charged with sodomy because they're protected under the right of privacy. Are we in synch so far? (No, I don't know their names or their phone numbers).
When the cops enter, they also see two people in the kitchen smoking marijuana. Another two are gambling. Another two are engaging in prostitution. They arrest those six.
I'm asking you, why doesn't the constitutional right to privacy extend to those six? Please answer my question.
Don't wait for a straight (ahem) answer.
[I'm sure mojave does, - but go on.]
When the cops enter, they also see two people in the kitchen smoking marijuana. Another two are gambling. Another two are engaging in prostitution. They arrest those six.
They can't, constitutionally speaking. Same privacy protection applies as to mojaves friends.
I'm asking you, why doesn't the constitutional right to privacy extend to those six? Please answer my question.
It does extend, but States ignore such protections if the higher courts 'look the other way'. -- Everyone knows this, but prohibitionists & their straight [ahem] 'men' prefer to imagine that they don't.
Don't wait for a straight (ahem) answer. 326 -mojave-