The Fourth Amendment
0 comments"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."
This amendment protects the people from unreasonable search and seizure. That is, no government official can search you, your house, your documents, or any of your property and/or seize (or take) any of your property without a Warrant. Furthermore, the amendment states that the Warrant can only be issued with probable cause to search and/or seize private property, and that the probable cause must be supported by Oath or affirmation. To me, this requires an witness who heard of or saw something worth being searched or seized. The warrant must also describe, in detail, the property being searched and/or seized (this includes seizing people).
This amendment not only protects against unlawful search and seizure, but it acknowledges what Locke and Hobbes would call a natural birthright: private property. Not only is one entitled to his/her personal belongings, be it land or a chair, but he/she also has the right to privacy of himself/herself and of his/her property.
While not much can be done about it, it is common for police officers to verbally, and sometimes physically, attempt to coerce someone into giving consent to search and/or seize their property, even though technically the Constitution says this right "shall not be violated" except by a Warrant with probable cause and "Oath or affirmation." By the letter of the law, consent to search and/or seize private property that came from the owner of said private property does not permit government officials to search and/or seize said private property; only if they had a Warrant could they do that.
__________________________________________
Laptop searches at the US border implicate legitimate Fourth Amendment concerns
12:20 AM ET
CBP is searching laptop computers, a least in the litigated cases that I have seen, only for child pornography. And they at least appear to be limiting these searches to those whom they have reasonable suspicion to believe are potentially transporting child pornography into the country so as to target their resources. But what happens when these searches begin to occur based on political speech because one opposes a government position or happens to disagree with the opinion of the customs agent making the decision (“the discretion of the officer in the field”)?
All the case law to this point is clear that reasonable suspicion is not required for a laptop search. No case has held that it is, and I don’t think that any will. That should not be surprising considering the Supreme Court held in 2004 in United States v. Flores-Montano that the reasonable suspicion requirement is limited to searches of the person and not personal belongings, and in 1971 that pictures and motion pictures could be examined at customs in United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs. Thirty-Seven Photographs predated the widespread use of truly portable laptop computers by more than a decade.
Can the reasonable suspicion standard of the border search law of searches of the person be readily imported into computer searches? Not likely. United States v. Montoya De Hernandez from 1985 left open the question as to whether reasonable suspicion was required for intensive border searches of the person, including strip and body cavity searches (n. 4: “It is also important to note what we do not hold. Because the issues are not presented today we suggest no view on what level of suspicion, if any, is required for nonroutine border searches such as strip, body-cavity, or involuntary x-ray searches.”).
The technology did not exist until the last four years, but what about backscatter technology that permits a virtual strip search at the border? Virtually all persons subjected to it have no idea that it shows what one looks like under his or her clothes. It is not a mere x-ray. Should something that intrusive require reasonable suspicion? It doesn’t right now at the airports that use it for standard airport security - at least not yet because nobody has litigated it of which I am aware. That should prove to be an interesting case. But then again, it might not because the targets of the search are simply not going to be embarrassed by a virtual strip search that they don’t even know is happening.
But should Fourth Amendment protections be premised on what the target knows is happening? No, because you have a right to be free from an unwarranted search of your house, belongings, or conversations when you don’t know that it is happening. It is what the government is doing to your privacy that tips the balance in favor of the citizen, not what the target knows at the time."
I chose this article because it espouses fourth amendment concern with regards to laptop searches along the U.S. borders.
I chose this video because it deals with a potential law that would contradict the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
0 comments: to “ The Fourth Amendment ”
Post a Comment