Shirley Horng, Legal Aid Society of DC

Note to self: do not get involved in youtube flame wars again. Here lies my response, out of context.

This will likely fall on deaf ears given your obvious hatred of law enforcement, but read the 4th Ammendment and cite, specifically (quote it for me if you will) the part that requires a warrant for all searches. The 4th Ammenment provides protection against UNREASONABLE search/seizure. If an adult who is responsible for the area to be searched gives consent, no warrant is required. My only point is that the govt taking away an adult's RIGHT to grant consent is intrusion into that adult's life.

"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 probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So to answer your question: yes, you DO need to remind me where it says a warrant is required for ALL searches and seizures.

(Oops, probable cause, not probably cause.)

Hm? Look at your own quotation. "... and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" Probable cause is a requirement for the issue of the warrant, not a warrantless search. It goes on to require a specific place to be named (not a full search of a person or vehicle) and what is to be seized. Never is consent mentioned. Supreme Court rulings by conservative justices with an authoritarian lean and unconstitutional laws passed by congress made things he way they are today.

You've defeated yourself, dccop. Sadly, acts of congress and Supreme Court rulings condone your actions at the expense of citizens' rights to privacy and private property.
You are a law enforcement officer; you enforce just and unjust laws alike. In fact, cops prefer to enforce easier laws, such as drug laws. It's easier to bust a kid with a baggie or ticket a speeder than it is to bring a murderer to justice. When called on this, you say "the law is the law" because that's all you care about.

I had worried about my comments falling on deaf ears and it turns out my concern was justified. You say the 4th ammendment REQUIRES warrants for all searches and then fail to show evidence of that. All you have shown is that for searches that DO require warrants, police need probable cause. You have not addressed the topic at all, that of searches that do NOT require warrants. If you feel better thinking you have "defeated" me, so be it. I'm not one to stand in the way of someone feeling good.