“That doesn’t track with my reading of the constitution, please explain..”
I am not giving a Constitutional opinion, just saying what I think the problem is.
You can quote the Constitution and related case law to tell me I’m wrong; and I would not dispute a well reasoned and documented answer.
Well, the 4th amendment specifically prohibits violation of a person’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects without a probable cause affirmed by oath or affirmation with specificity as to who, what, where and why...
e.g. “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”
4th amendment text is as follows:
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.
Are you averring that the ambiguity of the term “unreasonable” is what is problematic? Or are you saying a warrant isn’t needed for wiretaps (without regard to the patriot act provisions).
I’m not sure where to go or what to specify if you aren’t a bit more direct about it (hence my request for further explanation).