Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
...As an aside, though, it seems like a great country we live in where people who are secretly doing really terrible things can make rather compelling constitutional arguments that they shouldn't have been caught because the state didn't go through the proper procedure to catch them.
|
well...I mean there is the 4th amendment to the US Constitution:
Quote:
|
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.
|
So either people can be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches, or not.
And either warrants shall particularly describe what is to be searched and who or what is to be seized, or not.
I mean, the right to be secure in one's home from unlawful intrusion by the government is part of the rights of englishmen which go back to the magna carta. So, I suppose one could set aside 700 years plus of legal tradition in the west because of one instance of alleged child abuse, but that seems rather short-sighted and imprudent, IMO.