(MrZ)
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.
Note the word "unreasonable". In MY opinion, it is NOT unreasonable for our LEO's to search carry on bags for those using PUBLIC transportation.
PUBLIC transportation, PUBLIC sidewalk, PUBLIC road, PUBLIC building, PUBLIC park, PUBLIC bridge, PUBLIC side of the road, PUBLIC land. So, you think that the 4th Amendment only restricts searches that occur on private property?
What you seem to be advocating is a regime under which anyone, anywhere on public property, can be searched without a warrant or probable cause specific to that person.
Note the words "but upon probable cause". In MY opinion there absolutely IS probable cause to search those bags.
The Probable cause: Muslim extremists have vowed to continue to attack our country, and have done so twice already. Said extremists have already conducted two similar types of attacks, one in London, and one in Madrid, both of which were executed by infiltrating explosives aboard the train in backpacks/bags carried aboard by said muslim dirtball extremists.
You misunderstand the term "probable cause." Probable cause refers to your justification for searching THAT person, not your justification for searching people in general. If I am walking down a sidewalk, a police officer is NOT allowed to search me or my belongings unless he can eludidate a specific reason why he thinks
I personally am concealing something illegal. The fact that x percent of people in the city are carrying something illegal does not provide probable cause for him to search
me, and any officer who did so would be slapped down by the courts and by his own department's legal counsel.
Here's the definition of probable cause: "Facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and that the person arrested is responsible."
You forget that the reason the Fourth Amendment was adopted to start with was the practice of the British doing
exactly what you advocate--sweeping for illegal activity by randomly searching innocent people in hopes of finding the guilty. That's precisely what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent.
"Probable cause" relates to the warrant, not the search. The search just has to be reasonable.
I do not know how A.G. Gonzales interprets the Fourth Amendment, but the idea that the Fourth does not require a warrant for every search is correct. It only requires that a search be reasonable.
Please provide evidence for the contention that the 4th Amendment was intended to allow for searches without probable cause specific to an individual.
The purpose of a warrant, when the Fourth Amendment was written, was to protect the police from lawsuits over the search.
In the early days of our republic, procedure was that the police (or sheriffs, or constables, or U.S. marshals) just did the search if they believed it was reasonable. If you believed your rights had been violated, you could sue them. If they had a warrant you couldn't sue them, since they were acting under judicial orders. Gradually it became more and more common to seek warrants for protection against lawsuits, and so many of us grew up thinking warrants were required for a search.
But one should remember that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government, NOT the government from the people. The Fourth Amendment is about limiting the power of the police to search.
But if you actually read the Fourth Amendment for what it says, rather than what we have read into it for one hundred years, you can see how this worked. We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches. We have the right to only have a warrant issue under probable cause. But those are two separate clauses.
So, what you're advocating is a system under which the police
don't even need a warrant to search your house, as long as THEY think the search is "reasonable," and they don't even need probable cause to search your person or vehicle if you are not on private property?
