Bill of Rights - Fourth Amendment Rights

What does the Fourth Amendment say exactly?

The exact wording of the Fourth Amendment is, “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.”  After reading this you must know the Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments protecting us from our government.  Well, except for maybe the Second Amendment.

OK let’s break the Fourth Amendment down to see where any misconceptions may be.

The wording of the Fourth Amendment is self-explanatory and our country has been very good about ensuring the rights in the Fourth Amendment have not been routinely violated until just recently.  Let’s take a look at the first segment:

“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…”

All US Citizens have the right not to be searched unreasonably nor their property seized, in any way, or for any reason, by any government officials (Police, Military, IRS, EPA, Government Investigators, etc.), at all levels (Federal, State, County/Province, City, etc.) without the government official producing a warrant, proving to the US Citizen they have met all these requirements.

1. The government official/agency has gone before a Judge and explained exactly shat they will be searching for and specifically where they will be searching for the item.
2. The government official/agency demonstrated to a Judge, they have probable cause (reasonable belief) that a crime has occurred, that the fruits of the crime are located in a specific location under the accused US Citizen’s ownership or control and the Judge believed the government official had sufficient probable cause to request the Search or Arrest warrant.
3. The Judge has administered an oath or affirmation to the government official to ensure they are being honest in their reporting of the incident to the Judge.

The Fourth Amendment is pretty easy to understand and is very necessary to ensure US Citizens are never taken advantage of by our government like British Citizens during this same era.  Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we, US Citizens, were never under the thumb of the government just due to our politics, financial status or governmental criticisms.  Lets look at the last segment of the Fourth Amendment:

“… and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I’ve already touched on this in the explanation of the first segment of this passage of the Fourth Amendment, because it was hard to leave it out and still make sense in the explanation of the first segment.  Now lets expand on it as necessary.  This segment of the Fourth Amendment mandates the need for the government official to describe where they are going to search and who or what they are going to be searching for to the Judge prior to the Oath or Affirmation.

Why is this segment of the Fourth Amendment so important?

This forces the government official to be logical in what they are requesting so they do not get a blanket search authorization when it is not warranted.  For example, if the investigating official is looking for an automobile, should the Judge allow them to search in the center drawer of the US Citizens dresser?  No way!!!  In this case the Warrant will restrict the search in places the Automobile might logically be found.  That could mean a basement to the house if there is a ramp allowing access, but if it is closed in concrete all the way around, as most basements are, then the search should not include the house at all.  Garages, barns, fields, root cellars or any place the automobile could logically be found must be listed on the Warrant.

If the government official was unaware that a shed was on the property, and it is large enough to conceal the automobile, he/she must return to the Judge (in person or by phone when authorized) to get the shed added to the warrant so it may be legally searched.  There are exceptions to this rule if evidence may be destroyed or removed without immediate action by the government authorities; however, they must be able to prove this at the pretrial hearings or the evidence will be disallowed by the Judge.

What exceptions may we find?

There are other exceptions the the Fourth Amendment like the Automobile Exception.  When a police officer lawfully performs a traffic stop on a US Citizen during normal traffic operations.  An official may search anywhere occupants of the vehicle can lunge or plunge, even the trunk.  This is done for officer safety, after criminals accessed the trunk from the back seat of cars, removed firearms and killed police officers during routine traffic stops.  In these situations a warrant is never obtained and what is found during the search is admissible in court as evidence.

Now let’s take a look at present day occurrences and see how they fit into what the Fourth Amendment states:

Now we have the United States Government with the ability to intercept any and all our telephone and computer communications base on an exception to the Fourth Amendment called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  This is not a bad idea if it was used as originally passed by our Congress.  This act was to be used to intercept terrorist communications in, out and within the our country.  If the government used it in that manner it would be constitutional in most cases, because it would seldom target US Citizens.  As we know, the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens.  Now the US government captures large volumes of communications from agencies like AT&T, Verizon and other huge communications conglomerated.  There is no discrimination by the government as to where the communication originates, whether terrorists could be involved in the communications or if it has any bearing on National Security at all.

Our government would never purposefully violate our rights as explained in the Fourth Amendment, right?

Our government has no problem violating our rights.  That has been my experience over the last 54 years.  They are directly violating the Fourth Amendment because the US Government is gathering large amounts of US Citizens communications and saving them for future use.  We, US Citizens, have the right to be safe in our communications with any other US Citizen.  If a call or email originates or is received by a probable terrorist in this country, originates or is received by a probable terrorist outside this county, or originates or is received by a known terrorist nation, it should be saved and held for national security purposes.  There is no excuse for the US Government to have these communications companies save all our (US Citizen’s) communications constantly and turn over a huge numbers of our calls, texts and emails to the government.  I wonder what kind of kickbacks they are getting.

What really bothers me about this is that between 1978 (when all this started) and now I am sure I’ve done something wrong.  Not necessarily illegal, but something that would embarrass me or prevent me from getting a security clearance.  If I bounced a check or considered filing bankruptcy, I would have talk to my family about it either over the phone or though email.  The government has no right to stockpile information like that about any US Citizens.  We seem to be the losers here, because the people we are electing into office are not concerned about this practice of steeling our communications, in fact they keep voting it back in as law.  There is nothing better than getting spit on by people we elect to office.

The big thing is, this is not done to protect our nation form terrorist attacks or any other legal reason.  It is done to illegally (according to the Fourth Amendment) to compile information about US Citizens that may or may not be used later to spark an investigation involving someone who the government should have never had any information about to begin with.  They can be very selective in who they investigate as well.  Example:  If you publicly say something and can prove it that may reflect discredit upon the US President or someone else with power in the Government, they have one heck of a lot of information to blackmail or just discredit you.  If I tried to gather this kind of information about anyone, I would be in prison.  Maybe that is where the government officials and participating communication company  big wigs need to be for violating our Fourth Amendment rights.

Well, I think I got my point across.  Please feel free to comment, I am looking forward to reading your views on the Fourth Amendment.

Take care and God bless you folks!!!