[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Oh No You Don’t: Small Win for the 4th Amendment Oh No You Don’t: Small Win for the 4th Amendment TOPICS:Police StateSurveillance State. Posted By: David K August 26, 2015 The 4th Amendment to the Constitution reads: “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. This Amendment has been considered all but lost with the all-encompassing and invasive surveillance everyday Americans are under. Our cell phone calls are monitored and logged. Who we associate with, what we share on social media and even our TV’s are spying on us. Now comes a small win for the battered 4th Amendment. According to TechDirt: The case involved a guy named Jae Shik Kim, who the government suspected was shipping items to China that were then being forwarded to Iran. Because of that, DHS grabbed his laptop as he was leaving the US (on a flight to Korea). The DOJ argued that the laptop was a “container” subject to search at the border. The court disabused the DOJ of this notion: After considering all of the facts and authorities set forth above, then, the Court finds, under the totality of the unique circumstances of this case, that the imaging and search of the entire contents of Kim’s laptop, aided by specialized forensic software, for a period of unlimited duration and an examination of unlimited scope, for the purpose of gathering evidence in a pre-existing investigation, was supported by so little suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity, and was so invasive of Kim’s privacy and so disconnected from not only the considerations underlying the breadth of the government’s authority to search at the border, but also the border itself, that it was unreasonable. In a world where every day a new violation of our privacy is revealed, it’s refreshing to see a small win by a citizen against an ever-encroaching police state. What do you think? Was the judges action correct or did DHS have a right to take Mr Kim’s laptop? Leave a comment with your thoughts below. Poster Comment: DHS screwed up big time on this one. The 4th Amendment has broad powers to protect the people and their property from search and seizure. But, you have to pursue the bums for infringing on your rights. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Thanks for some good news -- we need it!!
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||