4th Amendment: "The right to be secure in their persons"

[shintao]

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.

Actually several things come to mind here, from drug testing for work to taking drugs as a condition of parole for perverts. In these cases, the government skirts the 4th by saying it is voluntary acts.

So what gives a citizen the right to violate the 4th Amendment Supreme law, or the employer to insist he violate the 4th as a condition of employment?

And how is taking a citizens finger prints not a direct violation of the 4th Amendment, when arrested or suspected of a crime, or the government thinking they can store this data long after a trial and release from custody?

 

[zzzz]

The intent is to prevent government forces from infringing upon your personal property and person without due cause.

In the case of jobs you do not have a right to a job, that is a privilege and as such you consent to certain rules when you accept a job.

 

[shintao]

The intent is to prevent government forces from infringing upon your personal property and person without due cause.

Ok, I can see that, but that intrusion would require a court ordered warrant to finger print your person. When a person, innocent until proven guilty, so has full citizen rights, is arrested, it should require a court ordered warrant based on probable cause to finger print them.

In the case of jobs you do not have a right to a job, that is a privilege and as such you consent to certain rules when you accept a job.

This really isn't about your right to have a job. It is about a citizen violating the 4th Amendment with an accomplice employer. The employer might make using drugs as a condition of employment, and if you agree you are in essense engaging in unlawful practices which is a crime. The same is true of the Supreme laws of the land and the 4th. You don't have a voluntary right to break laws, or assist a criminal in unlawful behavior practices.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Fourth Amendment, like the First, does not apply to private organizations. They are there to restrict the government.

 

[shintao]

The Fourth Amendment, like the First, does not apply to private organizations. They are there to restrict the government.

So you are saying the 4th only applies in federal cases between federal authority and US citizens? Why then should state laws require probable cause or warrants, or arrests?