• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Preconventional discussion: Bill of rights, search and seizure

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
51,759
Reaction score
14,179
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A simple provision

Article 3

No individual May be invaded in his or her private affairs without authority of law, and no private residence may be searched without a warrant describing the persons or property to be seized in the premises to be searched, and no search of an individual outside of the home, May be conducted without specific articulable facts indicating said person is involved in a specific crime
 
A simple provision

Article 3

No individual May be invaded in his or her private affairs without authority of law, and no private residence may be searched without a warrant describing the persons or property to be seized in the premises to be searched, and no search of an individual outside of the home, May be conducted without specific articulable facts indicating said person is involved in a specific crime

It's certainly great, but I think adding on to it about things like communication devices and computers would be a step in the right direction -- like a person getting pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop observes or sees something that is an arrestable offence, does that give the officer the latitude to search through the phones, cameras or computers or etc that he or she may find either on the person or within the vehicle?
 
It's certainly great, but I think adding on to it about things like communication devices and computers would be a step in the right direction -- like a person getting pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop observes or sees something that is an arrestable offence, does that give the officer the latitude to search through the phones, cameras or computers or etc that he or she may find either on the person or within the vehicle?

I would specify that the federal government cannot do warrantless search and seizure of any private person or property of any CITIZEN--I do think that citizen should be specified. But I do not think the federal government should have any jurisdiction over what laws states and local communities adopt in that regard. And given the state of the world and the prevalence of a large number of people who are committed to and intend to do violence to the USA and its people, we must be careful not to hamstring the federal government from its constitutional mandate to provide the common defense. I'm not sure the ability to monitor written and electronic communications entering and leaving the USA or investigation of suspicious packages should be taken away from the federal government.
 
It's certainly great, but I think adding on to it about things like communication devices and computers would be a step in the right direction -- like a person getting pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop observes or sees something that is an arrestable offence, does that give the officer the latitude to search through the phones, cameras or computers or etc that he or she may find either on the person or within the vehicle?

also cars should be included.

And I don't think states should be able to limit this right.
 
Here is another good place to start.

29A said:
My ideas are important too.
AGENT J said:
My ideas are important too.
Amandi said:
My ideas are important too.
americanwoman said:
My ideas are important too.
APACHERAT said:
My ideas are important too.
azgreg said:
My ideas are important too.
BrewerBob said:
My ideas are important too.
Buck Ewer said:
My ideas are important too.
Chantal said:
My ideas are important too.
chromium said:
My ideas are important too.
Citizen.Seven said:
My ideas are important too.
CycloneWanderer said:
My ideas are important too.
DaveFagan said:
My ideas are important too.
Declan said:
My ideas are important too.
DifferentDrummr said:
My ideas are important too.
Geoist said:
My ideas are important too.
Grand Mal said:
My ideas are important too.
grip said:
My ideas are important too.
hallam said:
My ideas are important too.
Hamster Buddha said:
My ideas are important too.
Hatuey said:
My ideas are important too.
haymarket said:
My ideas are important too.
iliveonramen said:
My ideas are important too.
imagep said:
My ideas are important too.
Kal'Stang said:
My ideas are important too.
Korimyr the Rat said:
My ideas are important too.
Kushinator said:
My ideas are important too.
Luftwaffe said:
My ideas are important too.
mak2 said:
My ideas are important too.
ModerateGOP said:
My ideas are important too.
Moot said:
My ideas are important too.
Navy Pride said:
My ideas are important too.
NIMBY said:
My ideas are important too.
Ockham said:
My ideas are important too.
Paleocon said:
My ideas are important too.
Poiuy said:
My ideas are important too.
Psychoclown said:
My ideas are important too.
rabbitcaebannog said:
My ideas are important too.
radioman said:
My ideas are important too.
RedAkston said:
My ideas are important too.
rjay said:
My ideas are important too.
roguenuke said:
My ideas are important too.
sookster said:
My ideas are important too.
Superfly said:
My ideas are important too.
TeleKat said:
My ideas are important too.
The Mark said:
My ideas are important too.
TheDemSocialist said:
My ideas are important too.
Threegoofs said:
My ideas are important too.
TurtleDude said:
My ideas are important too.
Unitedwestand13 said:
My ideas are important too.
Unrepresented said:
My ideas are important too.
Visbek said:
My ideas are important too.
whysoserious said:
My ideas are important too.
Wiggen said:
My ideas are important too.
Your Star said:
My ideas are important too.
 
I think this law should also include the search of e-mails, social media, and all accounts registered to a person's name. We live in the 21st century. You can find out more about people through the internet, than what they keep at home.
 
A simple provision

Article 3

No individual May be invaded in his or her private affairs without authority of law, and no private residence may be searched without a warrant describing the persons or property to be seized in the premises to be searched, and no search of an individual outside of the home, May be conducted without specific articulable facts indicating said person is involved in a specific crime

Except if someone says they are "terrorists" then you go to Gitmo of Syria to prove you are not through water boarding.
 
I would specify that the federal government cannot do warrantless search and seizure of any private person or property of any CITIZEN--I do think that citizen should be specified. But I do not think the federal government should have any jurisdiction over what laws states and local communities adopt in that regard. And given the state of the world and the prevalence of a large number of people who are committed to and intend to do violence to the USA and its people, we must be careful not to hamstring the federal government from its constitutional mandate to provide the common defense. I'm not sure the ability to monitor written and electronic communications entering and leaving the USA or investigation of suspicious packages should be taken away from the federal government.

i believe under international law and UN conventions prevent that. Landed immigrants must have the same constitutional rights as citizens.
 
It's certainly great, but I think adding on to it about things like communication devices and computers would be a step in the right direction -- like a person getting pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop observes or sees something that is an arrestable offence, does that give the officer the latitude to search through the phones, cameras or computers or etc that he or she may find either on the person or within the vehicle?

Well my thoughts on how I were worded it was the type of thing you are talking about in this post, would be considered invasion of privacy without authority of law, in several of my constitutional amendment posts, I have borrowed a language from state constitutions where courts have upheld expansive readings of that right,
 
also cars should be included.

And I don't think states should be able to limit this right.

I was stopped at a road block one time. I gave them my license, gave them my registration and refused to speak. The police asked me to get out of the car, brought about 5 cops around to marvel at me. They badgered me for a long time until I eventually said, "I haven't done anything wrong." It was pretty much a pissing contest between me and the cop. Eventually he let me go.

I thought, "How would the average citizen in 1820 respond in the same situation? and How does the average citizen in 2014 respond today?" This search and seizure amendment needs to be different. I think it is very outdated. We respond to police different than the criminals of England who were shipped her to avoid the expense of housing the criminals. We aren't a nation full of criminals anymore. I think we can give the police a lot more lead way and make it easier for them to do their job. The fourth and fifth amendment were political popular in the 18th century because we were a nation of criminals. I don't think these amendments apply today.
 
I was stopped at a road block one time. I gave them my license, gave them my registration and refused to speak. The police asked me to get out of the car, brought about 5 cops around to marvel at me. They badgered me for a long time until I eventually said, "I haven't done anything wrong." It was pretty much a pissing contest between me and the cop. Eventually he let me go.

I thought, "How would the average citizen in 1820 respond in the same situation? and How does the average citizen in 2014 respond today?" This search and seizure amendment needs to be different. I think it is very outdated. We respond to police different than the criminals of England who were shipped her to avoid the expense of housing the criminals. We aren't a nation full of criminals anymore. I think we can give the police a lot more lead way and make it easier for them to do their job. The fourth and fifth amendment were political popular in the 18th century because we were a nation of criminals. I don't think these amendments apply today.
The United States was never a penal colony, Australia was but the colonies were not, The police do not need more leeway to "do their jobs " The rights in the fourth and fifth amendments are essential. Did you know police officers can legally lie to you to get a confession? They can put you in a interrogation room and tell you they have evidence against you that they do not to pressure you into confessing, that is why it is important to not answer their questions and insist on seeing your attorney
 
The United States was never a penal colony, Australia was but the colonies were not, The police do not need more leeway to "do their jobs " The rights in the fourth and fifth amendments are essential. Did you know police officers can legally lie to you to get a confession? They can put you in a interrogation room and tell you they have evidence against you that they do not to pressure you into confessing, that is why it is important to not answer their questions and insist on seeing your attorney

I don't think that the average citizen thinks this way. Criminals think this way but the average citizen doesn't care if the cops search their car.
 
It's certainly great, but I think adding on to it about things like communication devices and computers would be a step in the right direction -- like a person getting pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop observes or sees something that is an arrestable offence, does that give the officer the latitude to search through the phones, cameras or computers or etc that he or she may find either on the person or within the vehicle?

The would be more appropriately set out as some sort of right to privacy (not that I support rights like that)
 
I don't think that the average citizen thinks this way. Criminals think this way but the average citizen doesn't care if the cops search their car.

See now this is an argument I hate, if you do not kowtow to the cops then you must be a criminal, there are many reasons you should not let the police search your car, I have been stopped by police several times I always tell them they cannot search my vehicle, for several reasons, one they are under no obligation to care for my stuff. if they drop my junk on the road and break it you are liable to repair it because you consented to the search, two I frequently travel with firearms in my car and if they learn that they can choose to extend the stop and make me get out of my car for "officer safety ". Three once they have your consent they may hold you as long as they want, if you refuse consent they must have probable cause to hold you for a period of time longer then necessary to run your drivers license and issue your ticket
 
A simple provision

Article 3

No individual May be invaded in his or her private affairs without authority of law, and no private residence may be searched without a warrant describing the persons or property to be seized in the premises to be searched, and no search of an individual outside of the home, May be conducted without specific articulable facts indicating said person is involved in a specific crime

No person shall be subject to search of his or her person, or any of his or her effects by any state unless:

1. The provisions of state law have been observed

2. The inspection is performed at a designated checkpoint on entering or exiting the state, or at a designated checkpoint at some other place where state officials have a legal right to be

3. The inspection is reasonably believed to be necessary to guard against some acute danger

4. There is reasonable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of a criminal offense

5. The search is carried out upon a person arrested or incarcerated by the state

6.The search is carried out within the jurisdiction of the state

7. The person qualified to consent to the search consents

1 must always apply. If 7 does not apply then 6 and one of 2 through 5 must apply.

No person shall be subject to search by the federal government unless:

1. The search is carried out in accordance with federal law

2. The search is carried out at a duly established checkpoint at an international or interstate border or on federal property or some other property with the consent of the owners, or in a US territory or on board a US ship where federal agents have a legal right to be.

3. The search is carried out in the territory of or on board a ship of another country in accordance with the laws of that country.

4. The search is carried out in the territory of or on board a ship of another country which the United States is at war with.

5. The search is carried out upon a person arrested or incarcerated by the federal government.

6. There is reason to believe that the search will yield evidence of an criminal offense against federal or foreign law

7. The person qualified to consent does so

8. The search is reasonably believed to be necessary to gurnard against some acute danger falling under federal jurisdiction

1 must always apply. If 7 does not apply, then one of 2 through 6 or 8 must apply.

Unless it is reasonably believed to be imminently necessary, or 5 or 7 applies, any federal search carried out inside the United States, excepting a part of the United States under foreign occupation, must be authorized by a federal judge.

Without prejudice to any further restrictions established above, strip searches may be performed only when 3 or 7 for the states, or 7 or 8 for the federal government applies.

The conditions for arrest are the same as for search. Nevertheless persons may be otherwise drained, as long as the detention is reasonable.
 
i believe under international law and UN conventions prevent that. Landed immigrants must have the same constitutional rights as citizens.

If non-citizens have the same constitutional rights as citizens, why in the world would anybody choose to go through the hassle of being a citizen?
 
I was stopped at a road block one time. I gave them my license, gave them my registration and refused to speak. The police asked me to get out of the car, brought about 5 cops around to marvel at me. They badgered me for a long time until I eventually said, "I haven't done anything wrong." It was pretty much a pissing contest between me and the cop. Eventually he let me go.

I thought, "How would the average citizen in 1820 respond in the same situation? and How does the average citizen in 2014 respond today?" This search and seizure amendment needs to be different. I think it is very outdated. We respond to police different than the criminals of England who were shipped her to avoid the expense of housing the criminals. We aren't a nation full of criminals anymore. I think we can give the police a lot more lead way and make it easier for them to do their job. The fourth and fifth amendment were political popular in the 18th century because we were a nation of criminals. I don't think these amendments apply today.

You're lucky you weren't arrested for refusal to cooperate and thrown in jail.

Sadly, that's what it's come to these days - if you refuse to cooperate, that's the crime; not that cops are asking you for something they don't have a right to ask you for.
 
You're lucky you weren't arrested for refusal to cooperate and thrown in jail.

Sadly, that's what it's come to these days - if you refuse to cooperate, that's the crime; not that cops are asking you for something they don't have a right to ask you for.

This might get me into trouble but I have light colored skin.
 
Well, that doesn't hurt when a cop stops you.... sadly. But I'm glad you didn't get arrested

My wife says that I deserved to be arrested. I'd agree with one exception. It is my obligation as a citizen to enforce the fourth amendment. That is why I want it changed. I see no reason for the fourth amendment. I think it's outdated.

As long as it exist I will continue to do my duty as a citizen. I wish it would go away. Enforcing the 4th and 5th amendment causes some very awkward situations for people who are performing their duties as a citizen. :( I didn't like doing it but it was wrong for me to submit to their unconstitutional actions.

I am even more obligated to defend the constitution. I took an oath in July 1997 to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. I am doubly obligated and it sucks because nobody else is doing their part. Nobody respects our constitution therefore it should be changed into something that we can appreciate.

I didn't feel like a hero. I felt like an idiot. I wish I didn't have defend a stupid constitution. I'd prefer to defend a constitution that represents the values of the general population.
 
If non-citizens have the same constitutional rights as citizens, why in the world would anybody choose to go through the hassle of being a citizen?


The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
I think this law should also include the search of e-mails, social media, and all accounts registered to a person's name. We live in the 21st century. You can find out more about people through the internet, than what they keep at home.

I think the text should include an explicit protection for "all possessions, papers, and private communications"
 
If non-citizens have the same constitutional rights as citizens, why in the world would anybody choose to go through the hassle of being a citizen?

He's not talking about all rights; just the right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizures
 
If non-citizens have the same constitutional rights as citizens, why in the world would anybody choose to go through the hassle of being a citizen?


Well, it is not entire for one thing, you are not allowed to vote as a landed immigrant.

But, under international convention legal aliens are allowed the same basic human rights as natural citizens.

The same must be extended to refugees, however the latest accord specifies that refugees be granted those rights upon landing. The US, wisely, has chosen not to sign that particular extension, saving itself snake head boat people.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom