Constitutional right to privacy

[RetiredGySgt]

The right to privacy? Please don't make me laugh.

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.

What the above basically says is that you have the right to privacy unless somebody in power decides they want to snoop into your life.

That's not a whole lotta protection, folks.

In fact, thanks to our supreme courts rulings of late, it's basically meaningless.

We are only protected from "unreasonable" searches. Which the loons in these threads are ignoring.

 

[DamnYankee]

Further YOU agree to being searched EVERY SINGLE TIME you buy a plane ticket. Don't want to be searched? Don't fly.


I also "agree" to be taxed EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to work, or make a purchase. Are you suggesting that I quit my job and cease making purchases?

 

[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!

Never been to that site and still haven't.



You didn't write the OP, did you? Geez....

 

[billyerock]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. The Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

well heres' the actual 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.

define secure
1 a. archaic unwisely free from fear or distrust : overconfident b. easy in mind : confident c. assured in opinion or expectation : having no doubt
2 a. free from danger b. free from risk of loss c. affording safety - a secure hideaway d. trustworthy dependable - a secure foundation

I would say what its is saying if ... you have a right to not have your personal property to be searched or seized without a warrant .... that pretty much says it all ... the use of the Phrase "right to privacy" is to imply that you can't just barge into a person life a learn what you want about them... just because you want to... you have a right to your privacy which is saying you have the right to your property, your home, an papers, to your self ... no one else has a right to invade it ... to say you don't have a right to privacy is just spinning the intent of the phrase ... you have the right to be secure with your identity an your property and your papers ... an if you think about it, thats really saying you have a right to your privacy with out really saying it in the constitution

 

[Diuretic]

Every time a cop conducts a search then he or she has to articulate reasonable cause or the evidence is tossed.

That doesn't provide evidence of a constitutional right to privacy, just an adherence with it. Again, for me at least, that signifies an assumption of a right to privacy (natural law).

 

[editec]

The right to privacy? Please don't make me laugh.

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.

What the above basically says is that you have the right to privacy unless somebody in power decides they want to snoop into your life.

That's not a whole lotta protection, folks.

In fact, thanks to our supreme courts rulings of late, it's basically meaningless.

We are only protected from "unreasonable" searches. Which the loons in these threads are ignoring.

Yeah?

Define "unreasonable".

Who decides?

The searchers do.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The right to privacy? Please don't make me laugh.



What the above basically says is that you have the right to privacy unless somebody in power decides they want to snoop into your life.

That's not a whole lotta protection, folks.

In fact, thanks to our supreme courts rulings of late, it's basically meaningless.

We are only protected from "unreasonable" searches. Which the loons in these threads are ignoring.

Yeah?

Define "unreasonable".

Who decides?

The searchers do.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

Does so far. Our Courts have done a pretty good job of ensuring the Government doesn't overstep. Of course if your really worried you should be, cause the Liberals are fascists.

 

[editec]

Contrary to your mistaken notion that a QUALIFIED JUDGE has to sign a search warrant, that is NOT TRUE.

A justice of the peace can sign a search warrant.

And what legal training does that officeholder have to establish the validity of a cop telling them they have a good reason invade your privacy

Zero.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Contrary to your mistaken notion that a QUALIFIED JUDGE has to sign a search warrant, that is NOT TRUE.

A justice of the peace can sign a search warrant.

And what legal training does that officeholder have to establish the validity of a cop telling them they have a good reason invade your privacy

Zero.

Once again, our courts have done a good job protecting us. I have an idea? If you do not like it here, revolt or leave. I am about tired of your whining cause YOU got caught with weed in your house.

 

[Ravi]

Here we have RetardGuySgt in one thread singing the praises of judges while in another he claims they are horrible and unconstitutional.

TFF!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The right to privacy? Please don't make me laugh.



What the above basically says is that you have the right to privacy unless somebody in power decides they want to snoop into your life.

That's not a whole lotta protection, folks.

In fact, thanks to our supreme courts rulings of late, it's basically meaningless.

We are only protected from "unreasonable" searches. Which the loons in these threads are ignoring.

Yeah?

Define "unreasonable".

Who decides?

The searchers do.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

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".

 

[editec]

A JP gets to decide if the seach warrant is issued and you think they are qualified to make that decison?

Anybody with a high school education can be a JP in most states.

Qualifed?

I think not.

 

[DamnYankee]

We are only protected from "unreasonable" searches. Which the loons in these threads are ignoring.

Yeah?

Define "unreasonable".

Who decides?

The searchers do.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

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.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The right to privacy? Please don't make me laugh.

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.

What the above basically says is that you have the right to privacy unless somebody in power decides they want to snoop into your life.

That's not a whole lotta protection, folks.

In fact, thanks to our supreme courts rulings of late, it's basically meaningless.

Actually you got part of it, but not all of it. I have no idea what the rest of these people are talking about. I'll give the text book answer and maybe we can refocus the discussion afterward.

The so-called "Right to Privacy" was "found" in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. The background, though it matters not too much now might inform people why the "right" is so controversial. Connecticut had a law on its books in the 1950s (and probably before) stating that only married couples could purchase contraceptives. Yale law professors had decided to target this law as a sort of practical project for the budding young lawyers of Yale. There was no evidence that this law was ever enforced. For many years the professors tried everything they could think of to force Connecticut to enforce this law. Finally they set up a scenario and filed a writ of mandamus forcing the police to enforce the law. Eventually it gets to the Supreme Court.

So, in deciding the case the court indicated that the actual enumerated rights in the the Bill of Rights, have penumbras. That is to say they emanate a right like ripples in the water. So that "right" is not a mere "pin-prick" but a robust and fulsome expression. Here is some of the reasoning:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

So, what's so bad, if you think it's bad, about find a "penumbra" that creates a right? Often rights, which are a burden placed upon society by and individual or group, come into tension with each other. That is, two people legitimately exercising their rights may come into conflict. So a determination needs to be as to whose rights must suffer in that case. Here, the Supreme Court invented a right that did not previously exist, certainly not in jurisprudence at a minimum. The result is an "invented" right may come in conflict with an actual enumerated right. Then which right wins?

Lest you think this a hypothetical conflict, it actually has happened. As you may, or may not, know, the right to have an abortion (Roe v. Wade) was decided based on the right to privacy announced in Griswold. The conflict comes when protesters exercising their guaranteed First Amendment rights to Assemble and Free Speech come into conflict with a person's right to privacy (have an abortion).

Now do we see the tension?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah?

Define "unreasonable".

Who decides?

The searchers do.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

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.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

The standard for a "stop" is "reasonable, articulable suspicion." That means from the prospective of the "reasonable person" an officer can articulate what it is that is suspicious about the person he is about to stop.

This cannot be later justified by what is found. (He had 6 kilos of coke taped to his leg). He must be able to say in that moment before the stop, what was it that attracted his attention and make him conduct the stop.

Further, it would have to be reasonable so that a reasonable person in like position as the officer would have made the stop as well. (police instincts don't count).

The penalty for making an unreasonable stop or an unreasonable search is that any evidence found is thrown out. And, on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory, any evidence that is derivative of the illegal stop or search is also thrown out.

 

[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.

The standard for a "stop" is "reasonable, articulable suspicion." That means from the prospective of the "reasonable person" an officer can articulate what it is that is suspicious about the person he is about to stop.

This cannot be later justified by what is found. (He had 6 kilos of coke taped to his leg). He must be able to say in that moment before the stop, what was it that attracted his attention and make him conduct the stop.

Further, it would have to be reasonable so that a reasonable person in like position as the officer would have made the stop as well. (police instincts don't count).

The penalty for making an unreasonable stop or an unreasonable search is that any evidence found is thrown out. And, on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory, any evidence that is derivative of the illegal stop or search is also thrown out.

I think that was my point. There is actual law stating what constitutes "reasonable". The cops don't just make it up as they go along.

By the way, in the case that my friend argued, the stop itself WAS reasonable. He had broken some minor traffic law or other. It didn't, however, indicate the need to search the vehicle, nor was there any probable cause during the stop to warrant it, which is why it was ruled inadmissable.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

The standard for a "stop" is "reasonable, articulable suspicion." That means from the prospective of the "reasonable person" an officer can articulate what it is that is suspicious about the person he is about to stop.

This cannot be later justified by what is found. (He had 6 kilos of coke taped to his leg). He must be able to say in that moment before the stop, what was it that attracted his attention and make him conduct the stop.

Further, it would have to be reasonable so that a reasonable person in like position as the officer would have made the stop as well. (police instincts don't count).

The penalty for making an unreasonable stop or an unreasonable search is that any evidence found is thrown out. And, on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory, any evidence that is derivative of the illegal stop or search is also thrown out.

I think that was my point. There is actual law stating what constitutes "reasonable". The cops don't just make it up as they go along.

By the way, in the case that my friend argued, the stop itself WAS reasonable. He had broken some minor traffic law or other. It didn't, however, indicate the need to search the vehicle, nor was there any probable cause during the stop to warrant it, which is why it was ruled inadmissable.

I wasn't trying to post a "contra" position to your statement, more just filling in some gaps.

Yes, some jurisdictions do codify what's required for a search, at least elements.

I would imagine though, in the case you mention, the cop makes the stop and begins the process of questioning the person. At some point he decides to search the vehicle. I used to be that to search the interior of the vehicle either consent or a warrant was needed. In addition, to search any locked part of the car required specific permission or a warrant. So a locked glovebox was another container and the trunk was another container.

The supreme court has loosened that up somewhat. So basically the cop musta really screwed the pooch on that one.

 

[Diuretic]

Further YOU agree to being searched EVERY SINGLE TIME you buy a plane ticket. Don't want to be searched? Don't fly.


I also "agree" to be taxed EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to work, or make a purchase. Are you suggesting that I quit my job and cease making purchases?

Point out to me please the connection between complying with the terms and conditions of a contract with a private service provider and income and sales tax.

 

[Diuretic]

The right to privacy? Please don't make me laugh.

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.

What the above basically says is that you have the right to privacy unless somebody in power decides they want to snoop into your life.

That's not a whole lotta protection, folks.

In fact, thanks to our supreme courts rulings of late, it's basically meaningless.

Actually you got part of it, but not all of it. I have no idea what the rest of these people are talking about. I'll give the text book answer and maybe we can refocus the discussion afterward.

The so-called "Right to Privacy" was "found" in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. The background, though it matters not too much now might inform people why the "right" is so controversial. Connecticut had a law on its books in the 1950s (and probably before) stating that only married couples could purchase contraceptives. Yale law professors had decided to target this law as a sort of practical project for the budding young lawyers of Yale. There was no evidence that this law was ever enforced. For many years the professors tried everything they could think of to force Connecticut to enforce this law. Finally they set up a scenario and filed a writ of mandamus forcing the police to enforce the law. Eventually it gets to the Supreme Court.

So, in deciding the case the court indicated that the actual enumerated rights in the the Bill of Rights, have penumbras. That is to say they emanate a right like ripples in the water. So that "right" is not a mere "pin-prick" but a robust and fulsome expression. Here is some of the reasoning:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

So, what's so bad, if you think it's bad, about find a "penumbra" that creates a right? Often rights, which are a burden placed upon society by and individual or group, come into tension with each other. That is, two people legitimately exercising their rights may come into conflict. So a determination needs to be as to whose rights must suffer in that case. Here, the Supreme Court invented a right that did not previously exist, certainly not in jurisprudence at a minimum. The result is an "invented" right may come in conflict with an actual enumerated right. Then which right wins?

Lest you think this a hypothetical conflict, it actually has happened. As you may, or may not, know, the right to have an abortion (Roe v. Wade) was decided based on the right to privacy announced in Griswold. The conflict comes when protesters exercising their guaranteed First Amendment rights to Assemble and Free Speech come into conflict with a person's right to privacy (have an abortion).

Now do we see the tension?

I'm late on scene, sorry but that's the time zone thing.

If the right to privacy was "found" or "discovered" then that would appear to be a reference to natural law and not positive law. If a right to privacy had been created by positive law the language wouldn't mention it being found or discovered. Is that right?