Posted on May 15, 2018
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Just Hinted They Would End Privacy as We Know It
4.05K
78
49
5
5
0
What are your thoughts of the 4th Amendment?
The article below speaks in legalese. Apparently, the 4th Amendment is based on something called a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test. I am led to believe that these protections apply to individuals so long as individuals do not provide probably cause.
The article below speaks in legalese. Apparently, the 4th Amendment is based on something called a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test. I am led to believe that these protections apply to individuals so long as individuals do not provide probably cause.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Just Hinted They Would End Privacy as We Know It
Posted from thedailybeast.com
Government
Judge
Privacy
Society
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
IANAL.
I think it is troubling that Thomas wants to put the onus on the individual to prove a property interest. If something is in my possession, then I have a property interest.
This question is disheartening: "First, what kind of property interest do individuals need before something can be considered “their . . . effec[t]” under the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment?"
If I borrow a friends backpack and am walking down the street with it full of my possessions, am I no longer protected by the 4th Amendment because it is my friends backpack (property)? Does not being in control of a piece of property negate the 4th Amendment protections of that property? I would hope the answer is no. Is an unattended car in a parking lot open to search and seizure? If I drive my friends car, can I be stopped and searched for no reason?
Also, if you are in a rental car or a friends car and you do get stopped and the police find something (drugs), is it yours? Is it your friends? Is it the rental company's?
If the laundry bag of drugs found in Byrd belonged to the defendant, then so did the car (property interest). The car, and its contents were his effects.
Note: This does not include airports where you give up seemingly every right you have just for the privilege of catching a flight.
I think it is troubling that Thomas wants to put the onus on the individual to prove a property interest. If something is in my possession, then I have a property interest.
This question is disheartening: "First, what kind of property interest do individuals need before something can be considered “their . . . effec[t]” under the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment?"
If I borrow a friends backpack and am walking down the street with it full of my possessions, am I no longer protected by the 4th Amendment because it is my friends backpack (property)? Does not being in control of a piece of property negate the 4th Amendment protections of that property? I would hope the answer is no. Is an unattended car in a parking lot open to search and seizure? If I drive my friends car, can I be stopped and searched for no reason?
Also, if you are in a rental car or a friends car and you do get stopped and the police find something (drugs), is it yours? Is it your friends? Is it the rental company's?
If the laundry bag of drugs found in Byrd belonged to the defendant, then so did the car (property interest). The car, and its contents were his effects.
Note: This does not include airports where you give up seemingly every right you have just for the privilege of catching a flight.
(4)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
LCDR (Join to see) - Yeah, I will agree, the "suspicious white male" comment was vague. But in that vein, let's say there is a descriptive enough BOLO that points to me. White male, 30s, height, weight, etc. and some Sheriff goes, "Oh, Josh fits that description." Does that give Sheriff's probable cause to search my car and house? I would imagine they would come talk to me, but absent of any other suspicion, can they enter my house without a warrant?
Does the existence of an Amber Alert give police officers blanket probable cause to search every matching suspect outside of initial questioning? My guess is no.
I think we err on different sides of the coin: you err on the side of police responsibility and duty, and I err on the side of liberty.
I hope I didn't give off the impression that I was anti-cop. I understand they have a difficult job. I also understand that the difficulty of their job does not trump my liberty.
We've gone down quite a road here, and I appreciate it. Thank you.
Does the existence of an Amber Alert give police officers blanket probable cause to search every matching suspect outside of initial questioning? My guess is no.
I think we err on different sides of the coin: you err on the side of police responsibility and duty, and I err on the side of liberty.
I hope I didn't give off the impression that I was anti-cop. I understand they have a difficult job. I also understand that the difficulty of their job does not trump my liberty.
We've gone down quite a road here, and I appreciate it. Thank you.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
No worries. I appreciate a good conversation.
As to your specific scenario-- The 'initial questioning' usually determines what happens next. If they can rule you out just by talking to you, that's probably as far as it goes. If they can't eliminate you as a suspect just by talking to you, but could with a cursory search, they'll likely ask to do a search-- with or without a warrant. There is always the option of 'voluntary consent'. I am the type that-- if I matched a suspect description and they came to my house or vehicle asking to do a search-- I would 'invite them in' (to put it in vampire terms) in order to rule myself out as a suspect. Whereas it shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I little voluntary cooperation goes a LONG way when determining if someone seems 'suspicious'.
Also, searches of houses or fixed property almost always come from some legitimate probable cause and a warrant-- because the house isn't going anywhere. They have the benefit of time. Vehicle searches are the most likely case for what people would consider 'violations of privacy' because vehicles (and the potential evidence in them) are so fleeting and it is pretty rare that a person reporting a crime would get a complete or even partial plate number, but would have a general vehicle description. On the bright side, those searches don't involve disassembling the door panels and tearing up the upholstery like in the TV shows. Those cases are when cops are looking for something specific-- an abducted child, bags of money or valuables from a robbery, a murder weapon (or a murder victim), etc. are pretty easy and pretty quick and painless. They have you open all the interior compartments, hood, and trunk and step back while they look around. Most things they are looking for are big enough that they don't even need to rifle through anything-- unless your car is as full of your husband's random garage crap as mine usually is-- but rather just a cursory, visual once over. The stuff you see on TV shows with the CSI agents impounding cars and taking them completely apart is not what happens in real life except for drug smuggling vehicles... (Yes, inside the tires is a GREAT place to hide the illicit drugs you are trying to transport across the border, but it doesn't fool the narcotics-sniffing dogs, so nobody get any bright ideas :-) )
I think a lot of my deference to cops comes from having been one... Even thought that was almost 20 years ago, and I worked in physical security/ force protection than actual 'law enforcement' most of the time, the 'cop' mentality never really goes away.
It is a very tricky balance between privacy and public safety-- made worse by the fact that the police are more on-edge these days than I can remember based on the amount of unprovoked violence directed at police over the last few years no doubt as a result of the 'war on cops' narrative that the violent protest groups and the media are perpetuating. They've always been taught to understand that no interaction is 'routine' and to always be on-guard for the unexpected, but I try very hard in any interaction with police (I say that as if I have them all the time... I don't) to reassure them that I do not present a threat to them.
As to your specific scenario-- The 'initial questioning' usually determines what happens next. If they can rule you out just by talking to you, that's probably as far as it goes. If they can't eliminate you as a suspect just by talking to you, but could with a cursory search, they'll likely ask to do a search-- with or without a warrant. There is always the option of 'voluntary consent'. I am the type that-- if I matched a suspect description and they came to my house or vehicle asking to do a search-- I would 'invite them in' (to put it in vampire terms) in order to rule myself out as a suspect. Whereas it shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I little voluntary cooperation goes a LONG way when determining if someone seems 'suspicious'.
Also, searches of houses or fixed property almost always come from some legitimate probable cause and a warrant-- because the house isn't going anywhere. They have the benefit of time. Vehicle searches are the most likely case for what people would consider 'violations of privacy' because vehicles (and the potential evidence in them) are so fleeting and it is pretty rare that a person reporting a crime would get a complete or even partial plate number, but would have a general vehicle description. On the bright side, those searches don't involve disassembling the door panels and tearing up the upholstery like in the TV shows. Those cases are when cops are looking for something specific-- an abducted child, bags of money or valuables from a robbery, a murder weapon (or a murder victim), etc. are pretty easy and pretty quick and painless. They have you open all the interior compartments, hood, and trunk and step back while they look around. Most things they are looking for are big enough that they don't even need to rifle through anything-- unless your car is as full of your husband's random garage crap as mine usually is-- but rather just a cursory, visual once over. The stuff you see on TV shows with the CSI agents impounding cars and taking them completely apart is not what happens in real life except for drug smuggling vehicles... (Yes, inside the tires is a GREAT place to hide the illicit drugs you are trying to transport across the border, but it doesn't fool the narcotics-sniffing dogs, so nobody get any bright ideas :-) )
I think a lot of my deference to cops comes from having been one... Even thought that was almost 20 years ago, and I worked in physical security/ force protection than actual 'law enforcement' most of the time, the 'cop' mentality never really goes away.
It is a very tricky balance between privacy and public safety-- made worse by the fact that the police are more on-edge these days than I can remember based on the amount of unprovoked violence directed at police over the last few years no doubt as a result of the 'war on cops' narrative that the violent protest groups and the media are perpetuating. They've always been taught to understand that no interaction is 'routine' and to always be on-guard for the unexpected, but I try very hard in any interaction with police (I say that as if I have them all the time... I don't) to reassure them that I do not present a threat to them.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I wonder if those are accurate quotes that are mentioned across the article cause they blow my mind. I never liked Thomas from the day of his first confirmation hearing and to think he made a statement claiming slaves didn't lose their dignity because the status of the enslaved individual is already less than those enslaving them doesn't mean they lost any dignity as human beings. I bet he would argue an individual who becomes a prisoner in society today still maintains their dignity during their period of incarceration and further re-establishes their dignity when they are paroled. Your dignity is equivalent to your status in society in otherwords.
(2)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSgt Joseph Baptist - Yeah still a piss poor argument focusing on whether a person loses dignity as a slave. But to say forcing someone into slavery doesn't make them less human is such an absurd statement. Clearly those enslaved and being trafficked as property or and sold as animals would dispute that statement. Do not even try and defend that statement; that'd be an insult.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSgt Joseph Baptist - "You just sided with the idea that slaves aren't fully human - the very argument used to justify race-based slavery"? I did? Aren't you the one who defended Thomas' statement that human beings who are treated as property and animals still had dignity? In otherwords, you and Thomas are supporting a mentality that although slaves suffered from inhumane treatment but it's okay they still had their dignity. And now you're comparing the imprisonment of human rights activists to slavery? Prisoners regardless the reason they are incarcerated should never be compared to those enslaved by a population. Next you'll tell me the victims of lynching still had their dignity up to the very end. I would tell you to go 'F' yourself but I'm trying my best to maintain my decorum. Dignity and humanity shouldn't be limited to individual expression and inside feelings. External sources inflicting inhumane actions (such as enslaving) on other human beings with the intent of stripping the humanity and dignity of that person in efforts to make them obedient, emotionless, worthless.
So stuff your 'sorrys' in a sack; go read a history book then a human psychology book; you and Thomas are emotionally disconnected from the history of slaves and human trafficking.
So stuff your 'sorrys' in a sack; go read a history book then a human psychology book; you and Thomas are emotionally disconnected from the history of slaves and human trafficking.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SSgt Joseph Baptist Well, I certainly didn't know either in THAT much detail. I certainly appreciate the rundown. It was a lot of good information.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google