The Not So Gradual Erosion of the 4th Amendment at the Hands of Well Intentioned Laws

[George Costanza]

George, where do you live? These are all laws that deal with the privilege of having a driver's license. Do you consider driving a civil right?

I know Dude and others have cluelessly overlooked this obvious fact. But I have faith in you. You know what is really bothering you. Spit it out.

Well put - I'm chuckling a tad here. OK, yes - perhaps I failed to state my case properly in the OP. I'll try again here.

Probably I should have referred to laws which are supported by well-intentioned people, rather than being enacted by well-intentioned people. One of the things I hate most in politics, in interpersonal relationships, in government, hell, in LIFE, is the hidden agenda, pretext, if you will.

There is a hidden agenda to these "acceptable" practices that, on their face, appear benign and actually beneficial to society. A guillible public accepts them as such. But those of us who deal with the criminal justice system on a daily basis know better. These laws are enacted for a purpose that transcends their apparent justification. That purpose is to allow law enforcement to do things it would not otherwise be able to do because of the 4th Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure.

There - I guess that's what is "really" bothering me. And thanks for asking.

On your other point - no, driving is not a right - it is a privilege; or, at least, that's the way the law interprets it. But that does not mean that the Constitution has to take a back seat merely because people don't have a right to drive. I don't think you have a right to own a house. Does that mean that the police can enter your house without a warrant or probable cause and search it whenever they feel like it?

I agree with you in part -- there are those with ulterior motives that are there to enforce a police state mentality.

but then there are those well intentioned (by their world view) do-gooders like the woman out here who survived cancer. She stood up as a cancer survivor and has made smoking on the beach, or smoking within a specified distance of an outdoor bus stop with children nearby (high schoolers), a crime.

She is a well meaning do-gooder. Then there are those crazy fucks from MADD and DARE.

Laws that are enacted because of an emotional reaction to a specific event are invariably bad laws. They are poorly written and they also abound with unintended consequences. California's Three Strikes law is a very good example. Nothing wrong with putting third time offenders away for life - but, as presently worded, that can be done if the third (or "triggering") offense is something as benign as possession of a small amount of meth or petty theft with a prior theft conviction. The triggering offense should also be a serious or violent felony, i.e, a strike.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I moved to the fascist State of SoCal. It is fascist because both progressives and conservatives have gone whacko here. Being a liberal I was aware of this before I moved out west. I have had an education that is priceless.

I live here also. I have never quite thought about it the way you put it, but you are spot on.

Everybody seems to think that California is a hot bed of liberalism. We do have our, shall I say, "areas," where there is a modicum of liberal thought every now and then . . . But when it comes to elected officials, public laws, administration of criminal justice, fiscal irresponsbility, etc., this state is HIGHLY conservative for the most part.

California mentality: "I can do what I want, leave me alone" "Leave them alone, they ain't hurting you" "Lock 'em up Dano" all mixed in one jar.

People here wholeheartedly believe in that stupid myth of rugged individualism, and so they allow the most obnoxious and interfering personal behavior. The idea that bums and creeps have equal rights with everyone else , at the expense of everyone else drives me bonkers. I've had run-ins with punks and others over this shit. Even worried the police. And I have no PTC

There are laws against smoking at a bus stop, but they trespass and shit all over the place. Oh there are laws against that too, but they are not enforced. The public has a shit fit when rules that make it pleasant for everyone are enforced against the few who spit at the whole system.

Personal freedom out here = in your face obnoxious-sim (you'd think Dante would thrive out here ).


Live and let live has become, fuck you, I can do what I want. and homelessness is a personal lifestyle choice out here, thanks to government programs and the FUCKING Born Again churches.


excuse the uncharacteristic rant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

seat belt stops.
helmet laws
no smoking in all buildings other than, so far, residences
attempts to regulate certain foods other than purity
the list goes on and on.

Personally I see reasons for abiding by the intentions, but not laws or attempts at laws.

what is the logic behind linking all these examples of laws and are they all laws and not regulations?

Smoking, helmet, seat belt all laws.
Rest are being proposed.

All are attempts or demands to regulate behavior.

regulating behavior is bad?

 

[fyrenza]

Perhaps the 4th Amendment should be changed to read: "The right of people who are innocent of any crime to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated but, if they are in fact guilty of a crime, then screw them - they can be searched at will, without any type of probable cause whatsoever."

Only problem with that is, you can't tell whether someone is guilty or innocent until AFTER the search has been conducted.

You know what?

Perhaps it SHOULD.

PERHAPS our laws should reflect OUR concerns,

which, for myself, would NOT include whether folks wanted to smoke herb,

conduct themselves as homosexuals in the PRIVACY of their own homes,

listen to someone else's music and record it for their very own,

and a Multitude of other OFFENSES that just keep asshats like YOU in biz.

If I can't fucking UNDERSTAND the Laws and advocate for MYSELF???

The laws aren't valid in my reality.

 

[Annie]

what is the logic behind linking all these examples of laws and are they all laws and not regulations?

Smoking, helmet, seat belt all laws.
Rest are being proposed.

All are attempts or demands to regulate behavior.

regulating behavior is bad?

Concerning murder? Paying taxes? Licensing drivers, doctors? No.

Personal behaviors and property rights? Yes, for the most part. Most drug laws are right up their with prohibition. While a meth lab is not something I want next door to me. So, in answer to your question, bad for the most part, necessary in some part.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Laws that are enacted because of an emotional reaction to a specific event are invariably bad laws. They are poorly written and they also abound with unintended consequences. California's Three Strikes law is a very good example. Nothing wrong with putting third time offenders away for life - but, as presently worded, that can be done if the third (or "triggering") offense is something as benign as possession of a small amount of meth or petty theft with a prior theft conviction. The triggering offense should also be a serious or violent felony, i.e, a strike.

there's an old liberal saying "bad law makes terrible policy" or something along those lines.

it was often used in my presence by older and wiser people who would be explaining why certain progressive or conservative, populist laws that meant well should never see the light of day. some would be struck down and raise expectations and fears among the public. others would pass and become nightmares enshrined in statute.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Smoking, helmet, seat belt all laws.
Rest are being proposed.

All are attempts or demands to regulate behavior.

regulating behavior is bad?

Concerning murder? Paying taxes? Licensing drivers, doctors? No.

Personal behaviors and property rights? Yes, for the most part. Most drug laws are right up their with prohibition. While a meth lab is not something I want next door to me. So, in answer to your question, bad for the most part, necessary in some part.

I understand, about the silly drug laws. I make distinctions between legalization and decriminalization. But I think about the helmet and seat belt laws. One needs to be licensed and insured to drive. I do not support the laws to control behavior. I support those laws like I do laws saying you must be insured to drive on public roads.

One can drive a cycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seat belt, as long as the driving is done on a private road.

as with anchor babies, with accidents, we all pay.

however, I would support dropping helmet and seat belt laws if there were a law demanding particular insurance policies for those who want to ride sans helmet, or drive free of seat belts.

not all support for behavioral laws are based on your false assumptions of the motives of others.

 

[Bfgrn]

---

---
It is the WORST form of Statism, because NO totalitarian state would ever succeed without citizens that carry their views...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

I don't believe Statism exists with any degree of substance in American politics. Who advocates this...

Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[3] -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism


...I ask because many have implied the above is a widely held view held of others here and around the nation.

Democracy and the Threat of Authoritarianism

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party Authoritarians Have Taken Control

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Why Authoritarians Now Control the Republican Party The Rise of Authoritarian Conservatism

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism On American Government Part Three in a Three-Part Series

Video: 50 year study says conservatives 'followers' much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

Victor Gold, Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP

Let me know when you have finished theses and I will provide more.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't believe Statism exists with any degree of substance in American politics. Who advocates this...

Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[3] -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism


...I ask because many have implied the above is a widely held view held of others here and around the nation.

WOW Dante, do you live on an island? Over the past 30-40 years America has slipped or lost the distinction of being number one in many areas; education, manufacturing etc. BUT, America IS number one by FAR in locking up human beings. Even a right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation has begun to take notice.

Too Many Laws Turn Innocents into Criminals

America is in the throes of “overcriminalization.”

Too Many Laws Turn Innocents into Criminals | The Heritage Foundation

THAT is not the America I grew up in during the 'liberal' era of the 50's and 60's...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/quinn/US_incarceration_timeline.gifIMG]

[IMG]http://taylorsmurphy.com/images/incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif/IMG][/QUOTE]

Maybe I'm missing something (it's always possible) but I have no idea what those charts have to do with the definition of Statism I posted.[/QUOTE]

Maybe this will be more succinct...

From: [url=http://www.truth-out.org/democracy-and-threat-authoritarianism-politics-beyond-barack-obama56890]Democracy and the Threat of Authoritarianism[/url]

The renowned political theorist Sheldon Wolin, in "Democracy Incorporated," updates these views and argued persuasively that the United States has produced its own unique form of authoritarianism, which he called "inverted totalitarianism." Wolin claimed that under traditional forms of totalitarianism, there are usually founding texts such as "Mein Kampf," rule by a personal demagogue such as Adolph Hitler, political change enacted by a revolutionary movement such as the Bolsheviks, the Constitution rewritten or discarded, the political state's firm control over corporate interests and an idealized and all-encompassing ideology used to create a unified and totalizing understanding of society. At the same time, the government uses all of the power of its cultural and repressive state apparatuses to fashion followers in its own ideological image and collective identity.

Wolin argued that, in the United States, an emerging authoritarianism appears to take on a very different form. Instead of a charismatic leader, the government is now governed through the anonymous and largely remote hand of corporate power and finance capital. That is, political sovereignty is largely replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reigns of governance. The dire consequence, as David Harvey pointed out, is that "raw money power wielded by the few undermines all semblances of democratic governance. The pharmaceutical, health insurance and hospital lobbies, for example, spent more than $133 million in the first three months of 2009 to make sure they got their way on health care reform in the United States." The more money influences politics, the more corrupt the political culture becomes. Under such circumstances, holding office is largely dependent on having huge amounts of capital at one's disposal, while laws and policies at all levels of government are mostly fashioned by lobbyists representing big business corporations and commanding financial institutions. Moreover, as the politics of the health care reform indicate, such lobbying, as corrupt and unethical as it may be, is now carried out in the open and displayed by insurance and drug companies as a badge of honor - a kind of open testimonial to the disrespect for democratic governance and a celebration of their power. The subversion of democratic governance in the United States by corporate interests is captured succinctly by Chris Hedges in his observation that:

Corporations have 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals that dole out corporate money to shape and write legislation. They use their political action committees to solicit employees and shareholders for donations to fund pliable candidates. The financial sector, for example, spent more than $5 billion on political campaigns, influence peddling and lobbying during the past decade, which resulted in sweeping deregulation, the gouging of consumers, our global financial meltdown and the subsequent looting of the US Treasury. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent $26 million last year and drug companies such as Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly kicked in tens of millions more to buy off the two parties. These corporations have made sure our so-called health reform bill will force us to buy their predatory and defective products. The oil and gas industry, the coal industry, defense contractors and telecommunications companies have thwarted the drive for sustainable energy and orchestrated the steady erosion of civil liberties. Politicians do corporate bidding and stage hollow acts of political theater to keep the fiction of the democratic state alive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bfgrn, it's all about power,. It always has been. People vote for what we have. People are sheep. Change the system and we will end up back where we are today. It is part of the human condition.

If I believed in what you do, I'd support taking down the system and starting over again -- by force if necessary. I wouldn't care how many innocents got slaughtered in the process. I would sacrifice the few for the many -- for the greater good. I would in effect become what I hated most.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what is the logic behind linking all these examples of laws and are they all laws and not regulations?

Smoking, helmet, seat belt all laws.
Rest are being proposed.

All are attempts or demands to regulate behavior.

regulating behavior is bad?

Almost always

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Smoking, helmet, seat belt all laws.
Rest are being proposed.

All are attempts or demands to regulate behavior.

regulating behavior is bad?

Almost always

then you are saying almost all regulation is always bad. regulation is teh glue that holds a society together.

like Ronald Reagan with his idiotic bumper sticker slogan that government is the problem, you have it all wrong.

It is bad government that is the problem (Reagan proved that by example) and it is bad regulation that is wrong, think conservative McCarthyites and conservative Christian personal behavior moralists -- the main culture people within the GOP -- the GOP base. .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

regulating behavior is bad?

Almost always

then you are saying almost all regulation is always bad. regulation is teh glue that holds a society together.

like Ronald Reagan with his idiotic bumper sticker slogan that government is the problem, you have it all wrong.

It is bad government that is the problem (Reagan proved that by example) and it is bad regulation that is wrong, think conservative McCarthyites and conservative Christian personal behavior moralists -- the main culture people within the GOP -- the GOP base. .

No, I am saying regulating behavior is almost always bad.

Regulations do not hold a society together, neither do laws. If it worked that way the Soviet Union would still be around. They had regulations and laws that all but made it impossible to do anything that was anti social. What holds a society together is the people working together as individuals. The problem is whenever regulation starts working against that individual initiative, and that comes from both the conservative base, and the progressive base.

Also note that I was addressing a specific question, which is do i think regulating behavior is bad. Regulations designed to restrict personal choice are attacks on personal freedom, and rarely justified.

You want to wear the label of a traditional liberal, as opposed to the modern liberal, yet you apparently see no problem with requiring a business to force its traditional customers to go outside to smoke.

You apparently think it is OK to require people to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle, despite the obvious health benefits to other people from letting organ donors ride without one, and the fact that it interferes with a personal choice.

Do you also think it is a good idea that NYC is working to require all restaraunts to prepare all food without using any salt? Despite the fact that slat is not a direct cause of any health problems unless people are likely to get those problems even if they control their salt intake?

I stand behind my comment, regulating behavior is almost always bad.

 

[George Costanza]

You apparently think it is OK to require people to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle, despite the obvious health benefits to other people from letting organ donors ride without one,

A curious statement . . .

 

[Oddball]

---

---
It is the WORST form of Statism, because NO totalitarian state would ever succeed without citizens that carry their views...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

I don't believe Statism exists with any degree of substance in American politics. Who advocates this...

Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[3] -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism


...I ask because many have implied the above is a widely held view held of others here and around the nation.

Democracy and the Threat of Authoritarianism

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party Authoritarians Have Taken Control

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Why Authoritarians Now Control the Republican Party The Rise of Authoritarian Conservatism

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism On American Government Part Three in a Three-Part Series

Video: 50 year study says conservatives 'followers' much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

Victor Gold, Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP

Let me know when you have finished theses and I will provide more.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

How 'bout you provide some links showing how the same authoritarain police state despotism is also being driven by the left, as anyone with half a brain (which obviously excludes you) knows they do, you hack?

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't believe Statism exists with any degree of substance in American politics. Who advocates this...

Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[3] -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism


...I ask because many have implied the above is a widely held view held of others here and around the nation.

Democracy and the Threat of Authoritarianism

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party Authoritarians Have Taken Control

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Why Authoritarians Now Control the Republican Party The Rise of Authoritarian Conservatism

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism On American Government Part Three in a Three-Part Series

Video: 50 year study says conservatives 'followers' much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

Victor Gold, Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP

Let me know when you have finished theses and I will provide more.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

How 'bout you provide some links showing how the same authoritarain police state despotism is also being driven by the left, as anyone with half a brain (which obviously excludes you) knows they do, you hack?

WOW, being called a 'hack' by the biggest phony on the board? A DUD who calls himself a 'libertarian' but always side with the far right...

'how the same authoritarian police state despotism is also being driven by the left'

There's only one problem Jethro, it isn't.

I recall when the 'compassionate conservatives' took over Congress in the mid-90's, as the crime bill was going through Congress. A provision of the crime bill was money was to be equally spent on increased law enforcement personnel, improved prisons and money for community centers and after school programs...BUT, the 'compassionate conservatives' immediately jumped on the money for community centers and after school programs. The 'compassionate conservatives' said" 'We're not going to pay for 'midnight basketball'.

The FACTS are most juvenile crime occurs between school recess and when parents get home from work. Police Chiefs from around the country came to Washington to lobby Congressman and Senators...their message: what you call 'midnight basketball' is the best way to make police work easier.

You right wing scum bags NEVER have solutions, just a whole set of punishments...that ultimately cost the taxpayers MORE and society always suffers.

 

[Oddball]

I'll score that one a big "NO"....Hack.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll score that one a big "NO"....Hack.

Hey DUD, you REALLY need to get a set of these, because that is ALL you ever contribute.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You apparently think it is OK to require people to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle, despite the obvious health benefits to other people from letting organ donors ride without one,

A curious statement . . .

Throwing in a little sarcasm. The argument for requiring helmets is that it is a net benefit to society because it protects the rider from injury and saves others the cost of treating them. I once read a story where a doctor worked against helmet laws, and would even go riding with a local club. Whenever there was an accident he would do everything possible to keep the injured rider stable until he could get them to a hospital, and harvest their organs. I always like to tweak people who justify laws like the helmet law because of their benefits by pointing out benefits they overlook.

 

[lawbuff]

George, I understand your gravaman here, but I respectfully disagree to the most extent.

If we went strictly by the 4th AM, since many screeners at airports are govt. employees now, a Search Warrant would have to be secured for every bag, etc. Administrative searches are one exception. The same with US Borders.


You really would not like the ruling then that permits a checkpoint to ask neighborhood drivers if they had witnessed a major felony? I can't remember the name right name right now, USSC.

Should firemen need a Warrant to enter a home to fight a fire?

Don't jump on me now for the comparison bro.

The point I am making is, what is UNreasonable, may be as different as night and day to some jurists.

I have some case law, as a matter of fact, on such searches, I copied out of A.L.R.

On the reverse you speak of, Drug interdiction checkpoints have been struck down, Indianapolis v. Edmonson.

Now, the trouble I may have is, some states codify it is illegal to bypass a checkpoint, and gives the officer PC to stop them anyway.

Another case, SC, and it escapes me now, forbids officer's to chase/detain a person for "sudden flight" when they see officer's coming, unless the totality of the circumstances warrant it.

So why are drivers that avoid CP's subjected to an investigative detention??

If the 1st 2 AM's were ratified back then, we would be talking about the 6th AM.

Just thought I'd throw that in.