ELECTRONIC SEARCH vs. THE CONSTITUTION

Fiedor Report On the News #301 ^ | 2-9-03 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

Back in the last century, in high school American government class, we actually had to be able to recite and discuss each of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. I still remember reciting the Fourth Amendment in class.

"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."

The important words, we learned, were that the people are "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," against search by government agents. And, that outside of a major emergency, Government agents "shall not" violate that security for any reason whatsoever without written permission signed by a judge. Furthermore, the government agent was required to present that signed permission (warrant) to the person in question, and give them time to read it, before any action was taken.

That was what was intended by the Founding Fathers, the first Congress and what was set in the law by many court cases over the years.

Until lately, that is.

The term "persons, houses, papers, and effects" would include traffic stops. However, recent courts have determined that "momentary" traffic stops are OK sometimes because they make it easier for the police to catch people. That is 180-degrees from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

"Persons, houses, papers, and effects" would also include communications. But, police find it much more effective to "search" our private communications via telephone taps and e-mail intervention when they do not tell the person they are under investigation. That is also completely opposite to the intent of the Fourth Amendment. But, again, police expediency supersedes Constitutional niceties -- our rights.

There's yet another interesting deviation from the law today: When we are talking about records or effects, police must have a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" before they can touch anything. That warrant must be presented to the person in control of what is to be searched or seized, and police may only take those items described on the warrant.

That was what was intended, anyway.

Today, as likely as not, government agents will take all computers -- containing all sorts of information they have no right to search or seize. Sure, they could copy off whatever the warrant states they have cause to seize and leave the rest. But, that might require a little work and some sort of expertise. So, they just take the whole computer system, with all records and personal information.

There was a time when some people kept two sets of books just to protect against that type of action by authorities. Are we now to keep two sets of computers? The problem with that is, unlike a set of books, there are usually all types of private information on a person's computer. If a few pages are involved in a crime, we agree that authorities should be able to seize the information after obtaining a warrant. But, just as authorities never confiscated a complete office before computers, so should they not now be allowed to take a whole computer today. Because, to do so opens up opportunities for all sorts of fishing expeditions -- which is what we see today.

Our computers and our private communications are today's version of our "papers, and effects." They "shall not be violated" for any reason unless a valid warrant is first signed by a judge and presented to the person controlling the information. And, that means that the warrant must be presented before the search begins and clearly state what information authorities have permission to seize.

That should, of course, include telephone conversations and e-mail communication.

Sure, that's inconvenient to the police and not the way they currently conduct investigations. So what?

Our Constitution is the supreme law of our land. Anyone in government violating it should be summarily removed from government and prosecuted. If Congress finds that our Constitution is too inconvenient and detrimental to the police powers they want public officials to have over the people, the proper course would be to attempt to amend that provision of the Constitution.

But, violating the original intent -- and, in this case, even the exact words -- of our Constitution is clearly an intentional violation of the supreme law of our land.

That should never be tolerated.

 END

[forest]

4th: "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."

The term "persons, houses, papers, and effects" used to include traffic stops and communications. Now the courts are doing a 180.

Sure, the 4th is inconvenient to the police and not the way they currently conduct investigations. So what? Our Constitution is the supreme law of our land. Anyone in government violating it should be summarily removed from government and prosecuted.

If Congress finds that our Constitution is too inconvenient and detrimental to the police powers they want public officials to have over the people, the proper course would be to attempt to amend that provision of the Constitution.

But, violating the original intent -- and, in this case, even the exact words -- of our Constitution is clearly an intentional violation of the supreme law of our land. That should never be tolerated.

[Ff--150]

That durn old living document! It's over 200 years old, why should politicians and police follow it, when President H. Clinton can protect us from terrorists invading this country...

[forest]

This essay on the 4th Amendment and searches would attract vivid interest in school. I certainly hope parents will ask their children, esp. teen-agers, to print this out and read it to their Sosh clases.

[Ff--150]

Sure the fourth amendment would get their attention, but that would expose them to the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments--and, egads, the Ten Commandments, maybe...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

ANTI-TERROR ÜBER ALLES

The mythical "freedom versus security" tradeoff is a false choice.

The 911 attacks did not occur because Americans have too much freedom.

They occurred because terrorists were able to gain access to the cockpits of hijacked aircraft.

Instead of retrofitting all commercial aircraft with doors which could actually be used to keep terrorists out of cockpits, Washington created an Orwellian monster named the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and hired tens of thousands of minimum-wage Gestapo to root through the underwear of airline passengers and prosecute those who objected.

Simply setting foot in an airport is now considered to be a terrorist act.

The fact that the TSA created a national airport police force without ever addressing the cockpit-door scandal is damning evidence that their mandate has nothing to do with protecting anyone. 

The true purpose of the TSA is to turn America into a police state. 

Airports are the incubators. 

The statists want to condition us to accept the idea that probable cause is dead and they can search our houses, our hard drives and our persons and demand to see our papers at any time. 

Airport screeners are the Brown Shirts of our day.

[Milesdavislover]

I am thinking the same. The conditioning has been going on for so long we have forgotten which is exactly what "they" want. We get it from every media source and our "elected politicians" all the time. Hopefully the sheeple will realize this soon. The police state is already here!

[ActionNewsBill]

The police state is already here!

Patriot Act II makes it official.

[dcwusmc]

Anti-Police State bump! Break out the tar and feathers and somebody fetch some rails for the ride out of town. About 600 should be enough. I'll bring the rope, just in case.

[ActionNewsBill]

Break out the tar and feathers and somebody fetch some rails for the ride out of town. About 600 should be enough. I'll bring the rope, just in case.

And the Bush-bots will contnue to live in denial, and sing the praises of this "godly" "conservative" president and administration.

I keep thinking that if clinton pulled half of the crap that this president is pulling, we'd have a revolution.

[dcwusmc]

Agreed. But my question is, given the tendencies of some on this board alone, who'd have replaced him?

[ActionNewsBill]

Agreed. But my question is, given the tendencies of some on this board alone, who'd have replaced him?

I realize that Bush was a better choice than the alternative, but at least with Gore, we all knew where he was coming from.

I believe Bush has lulled a lot of otherwise good people into complacency.

[DBrow]

"And the Bush-bots will contnue to live in denial, and sing the praises of this "godly" "conservative" president and administration."

Go back to the Antiterrorism Act of 1995 if you wish to see the roots of the Patriot Act, which just brushes up some details.

In TA95 you will find secret trials, open wiretaps, secret evidence, the accused not facing the accusers, illegally obtained wiretap evidence admitted in trials (of "terrorists" of course).

If the AG decides a state-level crime is terroristic, the feds can come in and take over any state investigation or trial.

It extends the constitutional "commerce clause" to include international commerce. It has a clause overriding any state constitution- a clear and blatant violation of the 10th amendment.

Go look it up if you want to see who laid the groundwork for the stuff you are complaining about now. The Patriot Act is trivial compared to this camel's nose under our tents.

The media and all the Clinton supporters went along willingly and gleefully in 1995- there was little dissent or complaining heard. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton said they needed these laws to make us safe and that was it. Bush-Bots had not yet been invented, but are now a convenient scapegoat for what happened to our freedoms in 1995- and you cannot deny who was president then, eh? What kind of bot are you?

The original House bill is HR2703. I don't have the Act number but a trip to Thomas will let you find the final version

[ActionNewsBill]

The media and all the Clinton supporters went along willingly and gleefully in 1995- there was little dissent or complaining heard. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton said they needed these laws to make us safe and that was it. Bush-Bots had not yet been invented, but are now a convenient scapegoat for what happened to our freedoms in 1995- and you cannot deny who was president then, eh?

Thanks for the info and for making my point so eloquently....it just goes to show that the policies that began under the clinton adminstration are willingly being continued by the Bush administration, proving that once again, it doesn't matter which party holds the reins of power. Both parties are leading America down the road to socialism, and towards a one world government.

The same folks that condemned the intrusions under clinton are now cheering the same from Bush...that was my point.

What kind of bot are you?

Not a bot....I just want to keep what few freedoms and liberties that are still available.

It won't be long before gun confiscations will be underway.

[ActionNewsBill]

Go back to the Antiterrorism Act of 1995 if you wish to see the roots of the Patriot Act, which just brushes up some details.

If I remember correctly, clinton got that passed shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, and I believe he also said that the bombing saved his presidency as well.

And Bush passed his version shortly after 9/11.

The players may have changed, but the tactics remain the same....problem, reaction, solution.

[DBrow]

And it was Reagan who pushed lots of rules on telecommunications providers to provide wiretap services to the FBI and others.

I think, though, that most of the complainers about the Patriot Act were in agreement with Clinton- there just was not the same level of dissent and discussion in the mainstream media. Not surprising, the mainstream guys loved Clinton and now hate Bush. If something Clinton did can be made to look like something Bush did, well good. Media talking heads are still saying 9/11 was the first terrorist attack on home ground- neglecting February 1993 and the bombing of the WTC by Ramsi Yousef and others (from Iraq) and Clinton's attempts to sweep it under the rug.*

At least the Patriot Act and the TA95 Act require warrants for most of the stuff- Carnivore and the like were/are broad nets.

I read Deep Black recently, about how NSA has for years violated law and constitutiion and mostly gotten away with it. For a while they took a peek at all Western Union telegrams. It was an NSA botch that freed the Chicago 7.

As for coming for guns, I don't see that at the Federal level. Lots of attempts at the state level, though, with moderate success.

*When Youseef was captured in 1995 his laptop contained plans to train suicide pilots in the US and send them against the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, and other high profile targets- named names and funding sources too. Gee, who couldn't connect the dots?

[ActionNewsBill]

At least the Patriot Act and the TA95 Act require warrants for most of the stuff- Carnivore and the like were/are broad nets.

You're right, the Patriot Act does require warrants.

SNEAK AND PEEK SEARCH WARRANTS AND THE USA PATRIOT ACT

Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act ushers in a new regime in America, a regime where the police learn at the police academy how to clandestinely burglarize the residences and offices of Americans and where the potential for police abuse is limitless. From now on Americans will be forced to live in “Orwellian fear that government agents may intrude at any time.”

[dcwusmc]

Sunday morning bump.

[dixie sass]

FYI and discussion

[dcwusmc]

Monday Bump

[dixie sass]

Evening bump.