The judge's reasoning is flawed. It basically was, everyone else is tracking everyone, why not let the police have their fun too.
The plain language of the bill or rights is: "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." It can be argued that police men digging through the papers in your trash in your front yard is an unreasonable search. If it's hot persuite or reasonable, you can explain it to a judge and obtain a warrent. This argument did not go over well in Montanna. There's a world of difference between taking something off the curb and combing through the details of someone's life. I'd be offended and want to call the police if someone sat down on my curb and started going through my trash one page at a time. What lengths do you have to go to to keep private details, such a birth control, medication, alcohol consumption or children's grades private? Do I need to buy an incinerator and sort all of my trash? My insult is only increased if my taxes are paying for me to be violated the same way. As the good judge noted, I'm already being violated by unscrupulous vendors. While my computer is free and unlikely to betray me, my ISP, phone company, creditors, insurers, grocer and every one else thinks they have a right to collect and publish details of my life. The feds have been uppity enough to think they have a right to demand further violations and suck up the records without a warrant. The practice has traditionally be thought of as treacherous and vile. The names for people like that are, "gossip", "busybody" and worse. I should be able to trust those I do business with to keep details to themselves but I can't and it is inconvenient to even try. Who wants to walk around with hundreds of dollars and pay a surcharge to avoid using a "rewards" card? If you sum it all up, it's invasive and repulsive. I shared the article because the judge did a good job of summing up many of the nastier invasive practices. I wish the judge had more courage in his convictions or had made his opinion more clear. The warning he issued was not as clear as it could have been. He listed a few gross violations he would not tolerate, such as mass or random trash sweeps but did not rule out less obvious violations such as a detailed searches. He left wiggle room for real harassment. On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:52 pm, Dustin Puryear wrote: > if you see a chair on the curb for garbage > collection then you have the right to take it. Why not the police? Hmm, so > is dumpster diving legal or illegal?
