U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America

"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Some dumb Indiana Sheriff sits back and does absolutely nothing while an even dumber health inspector trespasses on private property without a warrant. I hope both these people got fired because this guy couldnt be more correct about his constitutional rights to privacy. Smart of him to get it all on film.
_____________________________
Laporte County Health Dept
Julie Wolfe
809 State St. Suite 401A Laporte, In 46350
(219)326-6808 ext 200.
Fax (219)325-8628

DEPUTY CADE COOPER
SERVING SINCE 2004
Address: 809 State Street Suite 202A
LaPorte, Indiana 46350
Phone LaPorte Office Number: 219-326-7700
_________________________________________
Amendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) to the United States Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. The Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was originally designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution. Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.

The amendment applies only to governmental actors; it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. The Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government, but the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has said that some searches and seizures may violate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope. Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• U.S.
• Constitution
• 4th
• Amendment
• is
• Dead
• in
• America
• Gerbil
• Humper
• GerbilHumper

[neoconsnightmare3]

@heymisterderp lol...well, i and david (and pafoonik too) allegedly have a 'two year addiction' but you have a week old addiction which, per your logic, is no better.

i noticed the times you posted...10 hours ago, 9 hours ago, 5 hours ago. you gonna get some sleep? 

and spamming me and david...for shame. pafoonik saw that too. i noticed that for all your interest in this topic, you spammed us. how sad. don't want those dissenting points of view?

[DavidForthoffer]

@heymisterderp said, "Well then take trivial and useless which is the explanation for why it's irrelevant to this video".

Thanks for confirming that your original claims about what Katz protects are trivial and useless.

[DavidForthoffer]

@AudiRS4Life: You missed Orin Kerr's context—an audience of legal scholars who understood that the Katz test only applies to areas enumerated by the 4th Amendment ("persons, houses, papers, and effects"). Indeed, that is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in United States v. Jones (2012): "Katz did not repudiate that understanding."

Since the inspector here did not violate the man's 4th Amendment rights, she may have the right under Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 to enter.

[DavidForthoffer]

@heymisterderp: As you ought to know, neither "house" nor "effects" apply here.

Although "house" includes curtilage, the U.S. Supreme Court defines an area as curtilage if it harbors intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. She did not search any such activity.

"Effects" are moveable personal property. She did not unreasonably search any of those, either.

[heymisterderp]

What AudiRS4Life said.

The 4th protects our rights against govt searches by adding prerequisites to those searches e.g. a search warrant, with probable cause, and with specifics about what is to be searched; these prerequisites exist precisely so that searches are not "unreasonable".

The govt apologist who has so much problem dealing with just one extra easy step of obtaining a warrant acts like a plague to our Constitution.

Incidentally, the 4th's "House" and "Effects" both apply here.

[AudiRS4Life]

Doctrine for what is a 4th amendment “search”:

A search occurs either when

(a) A trespassory test is satisfied: (1) a “trespass” occurs, (2) the trespass is onto an enumerated item listed in the Fourth Amendment (“persons, houses, papers, or effects”), and (3) it occurs with the intent “to find something or to obtain information”

OR

(b) The Katz test is satisfied: the government conduct violates a subjective expectation of privacy and an objective reasonable expectation of privacy