December 05, 2005

Criminals Ignore The Constitution

As the Bush team often tell people discussing Iraq, a Constitution is a very important part of a free and open Democracy. In fact, proper adherence to the Constitution might even help stop criminals like the Bush cabal from terrorising innocent people with random bag-checks on the NY Subway:
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits searches without probable cause.

4 comments:

RAGE said...

possibly carrying a bomb is pretty good probable cause

gandhi said...

Do you understand the difference between the words "possible" and "probable"????

A US Judge certainly should.

Carl said...

Actually, gandhi, that's incomplete and therefore wrong:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968):

"If this case involved police conduct subject to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, we would have to ascertain whether "probable cause" existed to justify the search and seizure which took place. However, that is not the case. We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961), or that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 -368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct - necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat - which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures."

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706, 708-09 (1983):

"Given the fact that seizures of property can vary in intrusiveness, some brief detentions of personal effects may be so minimally intrusive of Fourth Amendment interests that strong countervailing governmental interests will justify a seizure based only on specific articulable facts that the property contains contraband or evidence of a crime."

"[W]hen the police seize luggage from the suspect's custody, we think the limitations applicable to investigative detentions of the person should define the permissible scope of an investigative detention of the person's luggage on less than probable cause."

gandhi said...

carl,

I see you have a blog called "No oil for Pacifists". I suggest you rename it "No Freedoms For Fascists".

As Jesus said: "You are the garbage."

Pages

Blog Archive