A few weeks ago I commented about coming upon a flashing sign on side of road: Drug Check Point ahead. WTF? Not a dui traffic stop, itself I believe illegal, but now a stop to check for drugs in the vehile. To me, that is not just unreasonable, it is a cause to rebel.
No due process, no attorney, no phone call, indefinite incarceration anywhere in the world, and to my knowledge nobody has to know about it either. Why so cavalier on NDAA?
“. . .more than half of American men will be arrested at least once in their lifetime, and a 2011 study reported by TIME suggests that one out of three young adults will be arrested at least once by the time they turn 23.”
Remove urban yoots from the sample and what are the stats?
I know a lot of people who have decided to have a key pad with a number code that you have to put in before being able to use the phone. It helps with not pocket dialing too. I actually have not added this feature YET. I may though if this ruling really gets serious and they start taking phones and “sniffing around”.
“Government advocates argue that the same power granted to police officers to search the persons of arrested individuals to protect either the officers’ safety or to prevent evidence from being destroyed, should apply equally to cell phones.”
____________________________________________________________
Well, OK then, thou dear sworn protectors of and upholders of the U.S. Constitution, if government can project certain rights to government based on new technologies, then from the U.S. Constitution the citizens may also project certain rights based on new technologies whereby deriving from the 2nd amendment we must have the right to the police officers’ social security number and home address and the addresses and recent activities of all the politicians and government officials so just in case they are found to be exercising tyranny we can quickly and safely eliminate the threat.
Oh, and while you’re at it, if it is keeping up with modernization that is driving these expanding of access, then we citizens also will require access and unobstructed use of every new and powerful weapon that is available for stopping evil tyrants. So yes, let’s talk.
Is there an app that will wipe an iphone clean at the tap of the screen? I have nothing to hide but it is absolutely none of their business.
Would love to see the look when the phone goes dark and the LEO is asked what did you do to my phone?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
bkmk
an arrest with dropped charges will destroy a life.
arrests without a conviction or some form of sentence should not be public record.
Same basic argument I posted previously about government listening to private conversations. The issue is not an inverted and unarticulated “right to privacy” as much as it is the articulated 4th Amendment “right to be secure” from unreasonable government intrusion. The two rights sound about the same, but the critical difference is “the right to privacy” is construed as something the government has a right to enforce (thus giving government power over “privacy rights” of individuals), whereas “the right to be secure” is a clear prohibition from wrongful government interference of individuals. The 4th Amendment “right to be secure” is pointed at limiting government, not giving it more enforcement rights as construed with “right to privacy.”
Scalia: Governmental listening to private conversations does not apply to the persons, houses, papers, and effects protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the 4th Amendment. So Scalia is saying that government doesn’t have to have to show any particular reason, certainly not a probable-cause reason, to listen in on private conversations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4&app=desktop
Me: Not sure I agree with that. Here is where I think Scalia is weak and conflicts, IMO, with the original-intent approach of constitutional scholar Judge Robert Bork – when Scalia uses the letter of the text to trump original intent. If original intent and understanding may be reasonably suspected to conflict with the text per se, especially in the current usage of the word(s), a good-faith effort should be made to uncover original intent and understanding. Here, that effort might very well show that something in persons, houses, papers, or effects that may have in fact included governmental listening to private conversations.
Examples:
• secure in your “houses” could certainly include wiretapping
• secure in your “papers” or “effects” may very well have been intended to include private communications.
IMO, the Constitutional issue in government listening (NSA and elsewhere) is not the level of threat, but whether the government has probable cause and whether a warrant would be required (usually required for a house search).
Can NO one read and understand simple English any more?
No different than cops insisting after they pull you over; that they can travel to your home; go inside, and search a paper address book.