The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police were allowed to se
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police were allowed to search anyone anytime they wanted, and to put wiretaps and other spy devices in people’s homes and cars, they could probably reduce the drug traffic and the violence in our country. What do you think about this potential invasion of privacy for a good cause?
Answers:
The reason that the fourth amendment exists, other than protecting us from a totalitarian government, is because back in colonial times the king's constables used to do the same thing. They would get a warrant without any probable cause or judicial approval, have it signed by the king, and it would be would for the lifetime of the king. They were then allowed to do whatever they wanted including searching anywhere they felt like. They could basically harass anyone they wanted. If we give the government this much power, then the government can pretty much do what it wants including the power to harass law-abiding citiens. They can bust down the door to come into your home, at anytime of day, ransack it, completely trash your things, and spy on you without any reason all in the name of fighting crime. The crime rate may reduce, however Stalin's Soviet Union did the exact same thing. Crime was low, but only because the people were bieng oppressed by their government. I'm sure those people didn't have anything to hide, of course there were millions of innocents that were arrested and sent to concentration camps then died in the process. If we give the government this much power, whose going to protect us from the government? The whole reason why we have the fourth amendment is so we are not living in a police state.
It's a fact that by removing all privacy and freedom, we can acheive absolute security... according to the guy who's in charge. Example, security in Bush's mind is getting rid of anyone who opposes him.
Too much opportunity for abuse, too many innocent people would be violated.
Sure. And if we ate orphans it would eliminate the need for abortions.
It would clean up a lot of crime, but people want not want to live under such a system. I would rather have my freedom than someone watching over me 24/7.
The war on drugs, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, eliminated the Fourth Amendment. The war on terror will soon eliminate the First Amendment and maybe the Second while we're at it. And it is all for the greater good. Utopia is right around the corner comrade.
Have you ever had a conversation that someone over heard and totally misunderstood? Suppose you were over heard talking about something that pertained to work and big brother thought that it was about drugs, they arrest you, charge you with something and you have to get yourself out of it, but while you are trying to get yourself out of it you lose your job, your credibility and your reputation, now what. We are already moving towards a police state why give anyone this much power?
Would they stop with illegal drugs? If you spanked your child, would you accept being arrested for child abuse? Would you accept being blackmailed because someone got hold of a tape of a phone conversation between you and someone you were having an extramarital affair with? Would you accept being arrested because you talked about protesting against a particular political party that was in power?
There are hundreds of possible abuses of this system. The easiest way to reduce drug traffic and the violence that comes with it is to stop being hypocritical and legalize all drugs, thus making them cheap and easily available. Then you could concentrate enforcement on people who committed crimes while under the influence, especially driving. But there would no longer be a need to commit violence to get the money for expensive illegal drugs and no reason to commit violence to try to control your particular share of the market if you are a dealer.
Once you surrender those rights you never get them back
This practice already exists in the form of warrants.One might be surprised at how little evidence is required for a search warrant to be signed by a local judge.
As I've stated before to others that have posted this same question, if you are not a criminal or law-breaker with something to hide, you shouldn't have to worry about your privacy being invaded, or illegal searches, seizures. They are not looking for you.
We should be lucky to not be living in other countries where you are taken in the night, and your whereabouts are unknown to your family. Or even countries that secretly slip you a radiation poison and watch you die over a period of several weeks. Those countries don't even give you a chance to answer to your accusers!
Here's a quote to remember.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
You have far too much trust in the government. How would you like to be send to Gitmo for being suspected as a terrorist? How would you like it if they listened to everything you said, heard that your wife worked undercover for the cia, and then announced it to the world? There's a reason why so many people died for our rights. The government cannot be trusted.
Privacy is one of the most precious rights that we have. Without privacy rights anything is easily twisted or misconstrued and many of us would be in prison without good reason.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: