Idiots Cops are breaking the 4th Amendment. They are breaking the law. They are no better then the bad guys they are trying to weed out.

The FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE:

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.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Congress Prepares to GUT the Fourth Amendment!. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

What they did was NOT ok. I really don't give a shit what the camera operator might have done wrong. They cannot enter a property without a warrant, and a bench warrant does NOT give them the right to forgo a specific warrant for that property. It is the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, and it is damned important!

I am not a right wing wacko by any stretch of the imagination, but when I see somebody flagrantly violating the Constitution, I get pissed. And you should too.

I hope these assholes lose their jobs and face serious sanctions. The police are meant to uphold the law, not ignore it.

The woman was searched when asked for her driver's license, and was seized when stopped and prevented from going about her business. Although Fourth Amendment law is riddled with inconsistencies, you can bet that the terms "search" and "seized" have been gone over many times in excruciating detail. The Supreme Court case Brendlin v. California (2007) is relevant here in that it summarizes and defines those terms for Fourth Amendment law: someone is "seized" when the police display a "show of authority", or the person would not feel free to go.

One has to remember that the Fourth Amendment was written at a time when the only way to gather information was to physically seize papers; inventions such as the telephone, automobile, through-wall radar, etc were not foreseen. The Supreme Court has to interpret the Fourth Amendment in light of modern developments. For example, in Katz v. US (1968) the Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment protects people and privacy, not only papers and places, and that telephone conversations were subject to protection, even though nothing was physically "searched" or "seized". To find otherwise would effectively nullify the Fourth Amendment in this modern world.

Hence, one must interpret the Fourth Amendment in terms of the case law and Supreme Court rulings, which are the law of the land, in addition to the actual original text of the Fourth Amendment to fully comprehend its meaning.

Another good example is the exclusionary rule, where evidence obtained illegally is not allowed to be used in court. This rule was adopted because of a logical argument; if police are allowed to break in and gather evidence illegally and then use it in court to convict someone, the Fourth Amendment is rendered null and void. So, the bottom line is that one has to look at more than the explicit words of the amendment to the intent and implications as well, when considering Fourth Amendment protections.

Downvote because NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED HERE.

"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."

Nothing was searched or seized here, and no warrants were issued. The video starts off with text saying a woman was arrested for not paying a $75 fine on the spot, with NO references, and later the police say she was arrested for driving without a valid license. To that dumbshit white kid: The fourth amendment has NOTHING to do with being able to go where ever you want "without fear that the cops will mess with you"


UUUUHHHHGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

^Yeah. Obama's scorecard is only from a pool of 20 votes though. And of those he voted:

FOR the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Senate)
On July 9, 2008, the Senate passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304) by a vote of 69-28. The ACLU opposed this legislation due to its failure to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights for individual Americans. Specifically, it authorizes an unlawful warrantless surveillance program, while providing effective immunity to those telecommunications companies that assisted government surveillance even before the facts surrounding the full extent of this program are known.
FOR Patriot Act Reauthorization (Senate)
On March 2, 2006, the Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005 by a vote of 89 to 10. The ACLU opposed this bill because it failed to add to the Patriot Act reasonable, necessary safeguards to protect civil liberties. It made many expiring provisions permanent, including provisions that allow the government to obtain a wide variety of private confidential records using National Security Letters, seek secret court orders under section 215, gag recipients of these record requests with only an illusory right to challenge, and secretly search homes and offices. The bill also expands the death penalty, limits protest rights at major events and coerces businesses to check their employees against flawed government watch lists.
FOR Judicial Review of Torture
On November 15, 2005, the Senate agreed to the Graham-Levin Amendment that would strip
detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay of most of their due process protections. The ACLU
opposed the Graham-Levin Amendment because, by stripping detainees at Guantanamo Bay of
the ability to file habeas petitions and other claims in federal court, it unconstitutionally removed the
system of checks and balances for persons seeking protection against the government's use of
torture and abuse and other denials of due process. The amendment passed by a vote of 84 to 14
and was attached to the Defense Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.


christ that was a pretty important 18%....

who does this cop think he is that he gets to decide how important a dog is to another man? I'd like to see a cruelty against animals charge followed up by a prosecution for violation of the fourth amendment.

If this was his child choking, I think a case could be made for him resisting arrest with lethal force if necessary. It being his dog....I wouldn't find the owner guilty in a court of law.

Not only did they violate the 2nd amendment, they also violated the fourth amendment:

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.

Quoting Justice Jackson in dissent of Brinegar v. United States

"The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

"These, I protest, are not mere second-class rights, but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual, and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police."

"But the right to be secure against searches and seizures is one of the most difficult to protect. Since the officers are themselves the chief invaders, there is no enforcement outside of court."

"Only occasional and more flagrant abuses come to the attention of the courts, and then only those where the search and seizure yields incriminating evidence and the defendant is at least sufficiently compromised to be indicted. If the officers raid a home, an office, or stop and search an automobile but find nothing incriminating, this invasion of the personal liberty of the innocent too often finds no practical redress. There may be, and I am convinced that there are, many unlawful searches of homes and automobiles of innocent people which turn up nothing incriminating, in which no arrest is made, about which courts do nothing, and about which we never hear."

They can ask all the questions they like, but you don't have to answer them if you aren't being detained. And you can't detain someone without probable cause. And failure to answer is not grounds for detention. Hence his point. Fourth Amendment. Read it. Know it.

Unless there are more exigent circumstances I can't see how border patrol agents stopping everyone on a highway within the United States is justified. Their real power is at the border where criminal law gives them an exemption and allows them to search your belongings without a warrant (including your laptop by the way so don't even think of leaving that porn on there).

Don't turn your fear of illegal aliens or terrorists running amok in the country into hatred for this guy. I can't say I'm comfortable with his tone, but no matter how much you feel for the woman CBP agent, it is part of the job.

Okay so you don't like his tactics. How else is he to go about getting change? Your elected representatives aren't going to listen in this climate of fear and if they do it could take many many years. The best chance to address this is in the courts by forcing the issue. If our rights are being violated, if our freedoms are being taken away, let's test it in court. If you want to be sheep and just accept whatever yoke the government puts around your neck then go ahead, but don't blame this guy for not wanting to wear it.

Oh, I see. For now, as tentative as both rights feel, I think they can be. Again, we were talking about wiretaps and he kicked in guns, and I was trying to thread them together while keeping on the fourth amendment topic. Sorry for sounding convoluted. You should hear me in real life when I don't have the benefit of a backspace key!

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
It sounded like you were saying that you couldn't have the fourth amendment and the second amendment existing in harmony at the same time. That's what I don't get.

It sounded like you were saying that you couldn't have the fourth amendment and the second amendment existing in harmony at the same time. That's what I don't get.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
The video was about Wiretapping, which is a fourth ammendment issue. Redsky brought up guns, which is a second amendment issue. If he wished discuss the two together then you have to combine the right to own weapons and the right to privacy, that's why I came up with the government making warantless searches your home for guns. Admittedly, a flimsy reach, but most of my thinking is like that

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't get it. Why would the government search everyone's homes?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Redsky-

I think there are other threads that cover the second amendment issue of the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll keep out of those because a friend of mine labeled me a "black powder liberal" on that issue.

This is a fourth amendment issue which of course states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

If you'd wish to mix the two, applying FISA and Wiretapping to gun control, you'd get something like the following scenario: The government having the right to enter EVERYONES home, without your knowledge and without court permission, to search for firearms. Would this be acceptable to you?

The video was about Wiretapping, which is a fourth ammendment issue. Redsky brought up guns, which is a second amendment issue. If he wished discuss the two together then you have to combine the right to own weapons and the right to privacy, that's why I came up with the government making warantless searches your home for guns. Admittedly, a flimsy reach, but most of my thinking is like that

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't get it. Why would the government search everyone's homes?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Redsky-

I think there are other threads that cover the second amendment issue of the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll keep out of those because a friend of mine labeled me a "black powder liberal" on that issue.

This is a fourth amendment issue which of course states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

If you'd wish to mix the two, applying FISA and Wiretapping to gun control, you'd get something like the following scenario: The government having the right to enter EVERYONES home, without your knowledge and without court permission, to search for firearms. Would this be acceptable to you?

I don't get it. Why would the government search everyone's homes?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Redsky-

I think there are other threads that cover the second amendment issue of the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll keep out of those because a friend of mine labeled me a "black powder liberal" on that issue.

This is a fourth amendment issue which of course states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

If you'd wish to mix the two, applying FISA and Wiretapping to gun control, you'd get something like the following scenario: The government having the right to enter EVERYONES home, without your knowledge and without court permission, to search for firearms. Would this be acceptable to you?

Redsky-

I think there are other threads that cover the second amendment issue of the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll keep out of those because a friend of mine labeled me a "black powder liberal" on that issue.

This is a fourth amendment issue which of course states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

If you'd wish to mix the two, applying FISA and Wiretapping to gun control, you'd get something like the following scenario: The government having the right to enter EVERYONES home, without your knowledge and without court permission, to search for firearms. Would this be acceptable to you?