Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

dickthegrouch

(4,022 posts)

5. I meant for Court evidence

Reply to ancianita (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 28, 2025, 03:09 PM

Jan 2025

And I'm aware SCROTUS hasn't necessarily agreed but the fourth amendment language is pretty clear

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.

I maintain that blanket seizure doesn't rise to any of those conditions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation): VICTORY! Federal Court Rules Backdoor Searches of 702 Data Unconstitutional [View all] ancianita Jan 2025 OP

The Fascits are coming,... the Fascists are coming,... magicarpet Jan 2025 #1

According to Timothy Snyder they're already here. This court decision is a precedent to put a chill on fascist ancianita Jan 2025 #2

Congratulations EFF! dickthegrouch Jan 2025 #3

Can you explain what you mean by "inadmissible"? Do you mean for collecting, or in court as evidence? ancianita Jan 2025 #4

I meant for Court evidence dickthegrouch Jan 2025 #5

Cool. Thanks. ancianita Jan 2025 #6