Re: The end of the Fourth Amendment

[FogStorm]

On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 10:24  AM, Tim May wrote:

> On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but 
> the "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the 
> Fourth Amendment that it bears special comment.
>
>>Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 
>> 66
>>vote on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following:
>>
>>  * Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the
>>contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would 
>> be
>>supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious
>>search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213)
>
>
> Anyone caught inside a house or office should be dealt with in the most 
> expeditiious manner possible.

Most people who detect an intruder in their homes going through their 
stuff
aren't going to think "This must be a government agent performing an 
appropriately authorized black bag job." They're going to think "Holy 
shit! There's a criminal in my house." and do whatever they feel is 
necessary to defend their loved ones.

So lets say a hypothetical woman named "Sue" ventilates "Agent Smith" 
(who she perceives as a burglar & possibly a rapist) with her twelve 
gauge. Will she be charged with a crime? Will she be "detained" until 
such time as the Feds have finished determining her involvement with 
terrorism? If she asserts her fifth amendment right to not answer 
questions will the FBI torture her until she "admits" she is a terrorist?

Re: The end of the Fourth Amendment

[Duncan Frissell]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:

> On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but the
> "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the Fourth
> Amendment that it bears special comment.
>

Unfortunately, the Fourth doesn't ban secret searches it just bans
warrantless ones.  And that ban was destroyed years ago:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/435.html

Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank
records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the
District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
Pp. 440-446.

Since then most of our "papers and effects" have been open to warrantless
searches.

Any good computer mechanics out there who can rig an electro-mechanical
interface for a computer-actuated spring gun.  Double-barreled shotgun
pointed at the keyboard.  Enter the right passphrase within 30 seconds of
starting your session or be splattered across the monitor.

DCF

"If you want to accurately foretell the future, predict war.  You'll
always be right." -- Robert Heinlein Worldcon 1976.