Amendment IV - The Murky IV 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. The 4th, IMHO, begins to get murky, even back then. What does “effects” include in the first clause? Do effects cover telegrams, phone & internet service? What about offices, backyard sheds and warehouses? Are they exempt? And what is “unreasonable”? What happens when the govt violates these rights? See what I mean. Murky wiggle room. The 2nd half isn’t much better: before govt can search it must show probable cause, be supported by oath or affirmation and describe the place and person(s) to be searched or seized. What if a legal search discovers other illegal activity. What if the illegal activity was discovered but search was found to by “unreasonable” after the fact?
* The legal definition of affirmation is: A solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury, by persons who conscientiously decline taking an oath; which affirmation is in law equivalent to testimony given under oath. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary) A solemn and formal declaration or asseveration that an affidavit is true, that the witness will tell the truth, etc.; this being substituted for an oath in certain cases. A solemn religious asseveration in the nature of an oath. Blacks' Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition We know that in Marbury,vs Madison , the Supreme Court took it upon itself to answer some of these problems. For instance, if a search is illegal, everything discovered as a result of that violation of the 4th, cannot be presented in a court of law. The violator of the Supreme Law of the Land and the target of the warrant cancel each other out. Huh? Since when do two wrongs make a right? No harm no foul? This ain’t the NBA. What they did was compound the problem. They exonerated 2 perps so as not of prosecute one of their own. Seems to me both law breakers should be punished for their crimes, donchya think? When replying to this message, plz cc [email protected] To be cont’d tomorrow. Rich Martin -- To join RichsRants, send email to: [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en
