Replies

I have many times and reasonable searchs don't require a warrant. That's why they search your baggage at customs without a warrant. It's considered reasonable. That's why customs can inspect incoming and outgoing shipments without a warrant and search ships. That's why we all get searched each and everytime we fly commerically. They are considered reasonable under current conditions. What's reasonable searching for a small amount of drugs (or a large amount for that matter) is very different than what's reasonable searching for a nuclear weapon that you think will go off shortly for example.

That's why the issue in terms of the needs of warrants not only revolves around the presidential foreign affairs and war powers but even if the Bush administration is wrong about those then were the actions reasonable under the circumstances at the time considering what the threat was. If searching each and every passanger flying commerically is reasonable due to the terrorist threat then wouldn't listening to and taking action on converstations between Al Queda operatvives overseas talking to people in the US also be reasonable? Considering what happened on 9/11; the first World Trade Center Bombing; the thwarted attack on the Brooklyn Bridge; the Cole Bombing; the thwarted attack on Los Angeles International Airport, etc. I think it is reasonable. Listening into someone from one of the drug cartels calling a major dealer in the US without a warrant would IMO be unreasonable. While both are threats of serious harm the first one is far more dangerous and represents the highest level of threat.

Here is some material on it:http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/eagle/winter00-1.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/catId/3900BEB2-2599-4E9F-B5F09F0DF3E33C7B/objectId/DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE/104/143/ART/

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/directory/0/16/

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

I guess that we speak different languages.

The 4th Amendment says that the right of the people against unreasonable searches SHALL NOT be violated. To acomplish that, warrants are required and they can only be issued after meeting certain criteria. That means that the government was required to jump through hoops.

Mere suspicion or even being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not enough to justify a search. There has to be probable cause, preferably some evidence, and a sworn affidavit before a warrant can be issued and a search conducted. How far afield we have drifted.

Therefore, for a search to be reasonable, a warrant must be issued. Any search without one is unreasonable by definition.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that there is case law that states the the damn government can do anything that they deem to be reasonable, but that doesn't make it right. And remember that when you argue for 'reasonable' you also argue for reasonable restrictions on your other rights.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Listening into someone from one of the drug cartels calling a major dealer in the US without a warrant would IMO be unreasonable.

That was one of the primary uses of warrantless wiretapping in the '70's.

What if the drug kingpin was also considering terror? There is one instance of a drug kingpin downing an airplane in order to dispose of witnesses. IIRC, over 100 dead.

Drawing lines between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" isn't easy, and at some point will come off as somewhat arbitrary.

Listening into someone from one of the drug cartels calling a major dealer in the US without a warrant would IMO be unreasonable.

That was one of the primary uses of warrantless wiretapping in the '70's.

What if the drug kingpin was also considering terror? There is one instance of a drug kingpin downing an airplane in order to dispose of witnesses. IIRC, over 100 dead.

Here are some facts on that one (granted, the terrorism was not "in the US," but the incident points out that there is no way to untangle "terrorism" from other activities.

Incidents of Major Airline Terrorism. By Wm. Robert Johnston.
Nov. 27, 1989 -- A bomb exploded aboard a Colombian Avianca Boeing 727 passenger jet departing Bogota, Columbia, en route to Cali, at 7:16. Exploding 5 minutes after takeoff in a passenger seat, the bomb ignited fuel vapors and caused the plane to crash, killing all 107 aboard as well as 3 on the ground. The bomb was planted by members of the Medellin drug cartel, led by Pablo Escobar who was charged by the U.S. in August 1992. The bomb may have been supplied by Islamic terrorists, based on similarities to the one that destroyed Pam American Flight 103. Five passengers were informants who had been targeted by the drug cartel. Two Americans were among those killed. Fatalities: 110.