Constitutional right to privacy

[editec]

The searchers do NOT define what is reasonable. The law does. There are very specific laws codifying what is required for a search and seizure to be considered reasonable. A friend of mine, who is a lawyer, just successfully argued such a case before the US Supreme Court. The cops searched his client's car at a routine traffic stop, and the court threw it out as being an unreasonable search for lack of probable cause. So clearly, the searchers didn't get to define "reasonable".

Hmm.... That is clear only if the lawyer is successful, which is generally defined by how much one is willing/able to pay for said lawyer. In lieu of that, the searchers do get to define "reasonable" and you're SOL.

Oh, yeah, because there's such a history of judges ignoring the clearly-defined laws on search and seizure and allowing evidence from improper and illegal ones.

Sorry for your persecution theory, but the cops don't decide what unreasonable is. The law does.

I love all this legal theory.

The cops lie their fucking asses and the legal profession agrees to believe them.

Please you fucking people act like our cirminal justice system is described in the continuous litany of cop and lawyers shows that are there to propaganize us.

Get a clue!

Going to court is losing to begin with if you need a lawyer to protect yourselves.

 

[Immanuel]

I have not read the entire thread as I came in to this late so maybe this has already been said, but the "right to privacy" exists because the U.S. Supreme Court says that the right to privacy exists. The scary thing about that is that if the current (or a future) court were to come along and say that it does not exist, then we would not have a right to privacy or they could come out and say that we do have a right to privacy but that right is limited in certain ways.

I agree with CW's contention that the right exists through those two amendments, but those two amendments do not preclude the government from terminating that right if it wants to. I believe that one's right to privacy is already limited, for instance, people have been charged with child pornography when their computers have been confiscated for other things and it is found that the computer has OR even had child porn on it. Not that I have a problem with arresting people for child porn, but still in that case it would be an invasion of privacy.

I am NOT going to do any links on that either! If you want to find cases to support or criticize that you are on your own. I am not going to search "child porn" on my computer and let Google report me to the proper authorities!

Immie

 

[DamnYankee]

The searchers do NOT define what is reasonable. The law does. There are very specific laws codifying what is required for a search and seizure to be considered reasonable. A friend of mine, who is a lawyer, just successfully argued such a case before the US Supreme Court. The cops searched his client's car at a routine traffic stop, and the court threw it out as being an unreasonable search for lack of probable cause. So clearly, the searchers didn't get to define "reasonable".

Hmm.... That is clear only if the lawyer is successful, which is generally defined by how much one is willing/able to pay for said lawyer. In lieu of that, the searchers do get to define "reasonable" and you're SOL.

Oh, yeah, because there's such a history of judges ignoring the clearly-defined laws on search and seizure and allowing evidence from improper and illegal ones.

Sorry for your persecution theory, but the cops don't decide what unreasonable is. The law does.

There is a history of judges (and juries) making a finding based on the "clearly-defined laws" presented. It isn't their job to litigate the law, only to review and rule on it. Let's suppose that your friend's case was presented by a rookie public defender who failed to communicate [on the friend's behalf] those "clearly-defined laws". The court would have thrown them both out, the friend with the "clearly-defined penalties" and the public defender with a smirk.

I don't usually take this position in such debates BTW -- the "persecution theory". Just attempting to stimulate some thinking....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmm.... That is clear only if the lawyer is successful, which is generally defined by how much one is willing/able to pay for said lawyer. In lieu of that, the searchers do get to define "reasonable" and you're SOL.

Oh, yeah, because there's such a history of judges ignoring the clearly-defined laws on search and seizure and allowing evidence from improper and illegal ones.

Sorry for your persecution theory, but the cops don't decide what unreasonable is. The law does.

I love all this legal theory.

The cops lie their fucking asses and the legal profession agrees to believe them.

Please you fucking people act like our cirminal justice system is described in the continuous litany of cop and lawyers shows that are there to propaganize us.

Get a clue!

Going to court is losing to begin with if you need a lawyer to protect yourselves.

Well, now that you've spewed your hatred and bile on the cops and the law, please prove that it's anything other than spite over your last conviction.

 

[Toome]

I think if you cite the 2nd Amendment as an example it's going to get a bit messy. One of the reasons is that the right to bear arms was in the English constitution (it was in a old statute that required certain subjects to own arms and also in the 1689 Bill of Rights) and therefore was in existence in the American colonies when the British were in charge. So in that sense a positive law right (as opposed to a natural law right) was in operation and was probably recognised in the 2nd Amendment. Having said that I'm of course open to correction.

LOL. Well, yes, that is the heart of the debate between true Americans and socialists who would disarm us. (OK, tongue in cheek! tongue in cheek! Couldn't resist the temptation.)

What I find disheartening is that in recent years, we've allowed Government to grow in power (yes, including the recent Bush administration). I'm a firm believer that every law passed represents a portion of our rights surrendered to Government. In some cases, it's a reasonable compromise (e.g. regulating speed limits on the public highway: makes sense to impose certain safety precautions). In other cases, like it or not, we DO have a right to be stupid. And in situations when our stupidity only harms ourselves, I don't think Government should intervene. For example, seat belt laws: I think it only gives police officers a weak pretense to stop drivers and conduct searches under the guise of protecting themselves from hidden weapons. And just to make a couple points clear: yes, I'm a big supporter of law enforcement. And yes, I believe it's moronic to drive without wearing a seat belt. However, that's a choice I make. On the flip side, you and I have a right to also be stupid and NOT wear seat belts---and deal with the consequences of such decisions.

Using seat belts as an example (which I think is very useful) I think it exemplifies the reality of modern life as opposed to what might be seen as a golden age in the past. I'm very conscious that I'm about to enter a minefield but where a society bears the costs of medical treatment and rehabilitation (and not just direct costs, which makes it all the more complex) of an individual who is injured in a VA then I think society has the right to lay down the rules which would minimise harm (and therefore the immediate and continuing costs for treatment and rehabilitation) to an individual who wishes to drive a motor vehicle in that society. If you don't want to wear a seat belt then take public transport or walk.

That's where the slippery slope begins. Setting rules to protect others from being harmed is quite understandable. However, when we allow Government to start telling us how to protect us from ourselves, we begin to permit intrusion that I believe crosses the line. Establishing a law that either does not permit me to smoke inside a government public building is understandable. Having the same law apply to a private business such as a restaurant is not. I think it would be better to allow the restaurant business owner figure out the best way to run his or her business. Customers who do not wish to sit in a smoke-filled restaurant will simply go somewhere else that accommodates their needs better. If enough people do it, then the restaurant owner may either see a decline in profits and accept it or make a business decision in an attempt to attract more customers. Either way, it's how free enterprise works. Government should not interfere with that aspect of enterprise. I can see the day, if it's not already applied in some states, when it will be illegal for a person to smoke a cigar or cigarette on his or her own front porch because of some law that is based on some wacko environmental concern or is determined to improve our own health by eliminating these "risks" as much as possible.

By the way, insurance companies always have the option to NOT pay for any hospital costs incurred as a result of not taking adequate precautions to prevent injury such as failure to wear a seat belt.

In its purest sense, we DO have a right to be stupid. That right to be stupid doesn't obligate society to come to our aid when we decide to act like fools.

 

[DamnYankee]

The Constitution says "Unreasonable" Our right to privacy is not complete. A sane man can easily see that the search functions to board aircraft are REASONABLE precautions and so fall with in the power of the Government. The newest forms are also quite reasonable as well, in fact they do not violate ones privacy at all unless one happens to have an illegal substance or weapon on them. The scan operator never sees the person he is scanning and he never sees their face. If he comes out of his room to the terminal he has no way at all to know who was and was not scanned by him.

I see.... It's "reasonable" to expect that all shoes will be searched by virtue of the fact that there was one shoe-bomber, and it's "reasonable" to expect that the searchers will not glance at any of the persons whose carry-on bags they are searching for any liquid-holding containers by virtue of the fact there was one incident of a dangerous liquid substance. Got it...

BTW, interesting that your OP contains nearly verbatim portions to this:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/

LOL!

If a non-government body is offering a service and it has terms and conditions in the contract theny can choose to accept or reject those terms and conditions. You don't want to enter K-Mart and have your bag searched? Easy. Don't enter their private premises. You don't want to take your shoes off at the airport? Fine, get a Greyhound ticket.

That would be all well and good if we weren't talking about the government's non-Constitutional control over privacy.

The Practical Nomad blog: Government subsidies to airlines

Government Subsidy Signals Smoother Ride For Firstgroup (from The Herald )

Congress Should Link Amtrak's Generous Subsidy to Improved Performance


Maybe we should all just walk cross country?