NationStates Jolt Archive

Between the Patriot Act, and the ever-popular "no knock warrant" that was popularized during the 1990s, I've wondered what has happened to the protections under the Fourth Amendment.

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 mean, do FBI letters demanding a records search, or a no knock warrant fall into this category? The FBI letter doesn't seem to fall under "supported by Oath or affirmation" nor "particularly describing".

And a no knock warrant seems to be "we'll roust you and after you're tied up like a sack of potatoes, we'll show you the warrant". Sounds "unreasonable" to me.

What protections do you have in your country, if any?

When I was in Junior high, I remember they started scaning us and searching our bags everyday because they were trying to "keep us safe". I was so mad, my parents even went down to the school board and threw a fit about my 4th amendment rights being trampled all over. We got a lawyer and apparently in my state school officals only need "reasonable suspicion" and not "probable cause" which means that according to them because you attend school, then it's reasonable for them to suspect that you have a weapon. It was really screwed up.

Anyway, I had to get my privacy violated by having my book bag and purse dumped out every single morning from 6th grade up to senior year, and because I had such "unpopular views" about what I considered the improper searches, then I got even more crap taken away from me and even got suspended for some pretty stupid crap (like the time I brought a prozac pen to school, because my mom worked at the hospital, and we had a lot of free "drug pens" and I got suspended for 3 days for "promoting drug use" at school)

Needless to say, whenever they had an actual police officer searching, or whenever the drug dogs came through, then I refused to consent to a search without a warrent or a lawyer.

The police need a warrant to enter my house. The new anti-terror bill now means that they can potentially do this on 'secret evidence' however which is pretty damned unnerving.

Well, the instrument of government says:

"Art. 4. There shall be no capital punishment.

Art. 5. Every citizen shall be protected against corporal punishment. He shall likewise be protected against any torture or medical influence aimed at extorting or suppressing statements.

Art. 6. Every citizen shall be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any physical violation also in cases other than cases under Articles 4 and 5. He shall likewise be protected against body searches, house searches and other such invasions of privacy, against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence, and against eavesdropping and the recording of telephone conversations or other confidential communications."

Art. 12. The rights and freedoms referred to in Article 1, points 1 to 5, in Articles 6 and 8, and in Article 11, paragraph two, may be restricted in law to the extent provided for in Articles 13 to 16. With authority in law, they may be restricted by other statute in cases under Chapter 8, Article 7, paragraph one, point 7, and Article 10. Freedom of assembly and freedom to demonstrate may similarly be restricted also in cases under Article 14, paragraph one, sentence two.

The restrictions referred to in paragraph one may be imposed only to satisfy a purpose acceptable in a democratic society. The restriction must never go beyond what is necessary having regard to the purpose which occasioned it, nor may it be carried so far as to constitute a threat to the free formation of opinion as one of the fundaments of democracy. No restriction may be imposed solely on grounds of a political, religious, cultural or other such opinion.

A draft law under paragraph one, or a proposal for the amendment or ab-rogation of such a law, shall be held in abeyance, unless rejected by the Riksdag, for a minimum of twelve months from the date on which the first Riksdag committee report on the proposal was submitted to the Chamber, if so moved by at least ten members. This provision notwithstanding, the Riksdag may adopt the proposal, provided it has the support of at least five sixths of those voting.

Paragraph three shall not apply to any draft law prolonging the life of a law for a period not exceeding two years. Nor shall it apply to any draft law concerned only with

1. prohibition of the disclosure of matters which have come to a person’s knowledge in the public service, or in the performance of official duties, where secrecy is called for having regard to interests under Chapter 2, Article 2 of the Freedom of the Press Act;

2. house searches and similar invasions of privacy; or

3. deprivation of liberty as a penal sanction for a specific act.

The Committee on the Constitution determines on behalf of the Riksdag whether paragraph three applies in respect of a particular draft law.

Oh, and then we have:

"Art. 23. No act of law or other provision may be adopted which contravenes Sweden’s undertakings under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms."

The Europeans Convention on Human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights), of which article 5, article 8 and article 18 are relevant.

I'm worried about this too, especially since it seems there are secret laws (http://news.com.com/Airport+ID+checks+legally+enforced/2100-7348_3-5987820.html?tag=cd.top) on the books.
John Gilmore, an early employee of Sun Microsystems and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the answer should be "no." The libertarian millionaire sued the Bush administration, which claims that the ID requirement is necessary for security but has refused to identify any actual regulation requiring it.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed skeptical of the Bush administration's defense of secret laws and regulations but stopped short of suggesting that such a rule would be necessarily unconstitutional.

"How do we know there's an order?" Judge Thomas Nelson asked. "Because you said there was?"

Replied Joshua Waldman, a staff attorney for the Department of Justice: "We couldn't confirm or deny the existence of an order." Even though government regulations required his silence, Waldman said, the situation did seem a "bit peculiar."
Now I don't find it to be an invasion of my privacy to show ID before I get on a plane, but what the hell is this secret law crap? Wouldn't that be a case where ignorance of the law was actually an excuse?

what the hell is this secret law crap? Wouldn't that be a case where ignorance of the law was actually an excuse?
you would think so..............

I'm worried about this too, especially since it seems there are secret laws (http://news.com.com/Airport+ID+checks+legally+enforced/2100-7348_3-5987820.html?tag=cd.top) on the books.

Now I don't find it to be an invasion of my privacy to show ID before I get on a plane, but what the hell is this secret law crap? Wouldn't that be a case where ignorance of the law was actually an excuse?

Whenever I hear the "cannot confirm or deny" I take that as a positive answer.

"Are there secret laws?"

I think the answer is yes.

Whenever I hear the "cannot confirm or deny" I take that as a positive answer.

"Are there secret laws?"

I think the answer is yes.
Yep. Now the question is, "what are we going to do about it?" This is another one of those cases where we ought to be able to drum up some bipartisan support.

No secret laws--hard to disagree with that slogan, huh?

Yep. Now the question is, "what are we going to do about it?" This is another one of those cases where we ought to be able to drum up some bipartisan support.

No secret laws--hard to disagree with that slogan, huh?

I'm a strict Constitutionalist for a reason. I like to see my laws in writing.

I'm worried about this too, especially since it seems there are secret laws (http://news.com.com/Airport+ID+checks+legally+enforced/2100-7348_3-5987820.html?tag=cd.top) on the books.

Now I don't find it to be an invasion of my privacy to show ID before I get on a plane, but what the hell is this secret law crap? Wouldn't that be a case where ignorance of the law was actually an excuse?

Its not really a law. Its the FAA requirements for passenger screening/security. Actually, its secret for a good reason, and it's not like you'll ever be punished for not following the directions of a screeners. If you refuse to comply, you just won't be allowed to fly. It's been that way for a long time too (well before Bush).

That actually doesn't bother me so much.

As for the rest of it, we gave up any form of privacy when the IRS was voted its powers and we stuck thumbs up our asses. To late to bitch now just because the government wants to look in your purse.

When I was in Junior high, I remember they started scaning us and searching our bags everyday because they were trying to "keep us safe". I was so mad, my parents even went down to the school board and threw a fit about my 4th amendment rights being trampled all over. We got a lawyer and apparently in my state school officals only need "reasonable suspicion" and not "probable cause" which means that according to them because you attend school, then it's reasonable for them to suspect that you have a weapon. It was really screwed up.

Anyway, I had to get my privacy violated by having my book bag and purse dumped out every single morning from 6th grade up to senior year, and because I had such "unpopular views" about what I considered the improper searches, then I got even more crap taken away from me and even got suspended for some pretty stupid crap (like the time I brought a prozac pen to school, because my mom worked at the hospital, and we had a lot of free "drug pens" and I got suspended for 3 days for "promoting drug use" at school)

Needless to say, whenever they had an actual police officer searching, or whenever the drug dogs came through, then I refused to consent to a search without a warrent or a lawyer.


According to Youth Law (www.youthlaw.co.nz), they wouldn't be able to get away with that in this country unless they had resonable grounds to suspect you in particular.

According to Youth Law (www.youthlaw.co.nz), they wouldn't be able to get away with that in this country unless they had resonable grounds to suspect you in particular.
I know, they still do it though. Every single day in every single school in the district, every single student is searched. (well, except for my kid, because I threatened to sue ;))

Its not really a law. Its the FAA requirements for passenger screening/security. Actually, its secret for a good reason, and it's not like you'll ever be punished for not following the directions of a screeners. If you refuse to comply, you just won't be allowed to fly. It's been that way for a long time too (well before Bush).

That actually doesn't bother me so much.

As for the rest of it, we gave up any form of privacy when the IRS was voted its powers and we stuck thumbs up our asses. To late to bitch now just because the government wants to look in your purse.
I half agree with you--no one forces you to fly, and there are plenty of other ways to travel without showing an ID, so I don't think the policy is unreasonable. But I don't get the reason as to why the policy or the law, assuming there is one (and since the Justice department wouldn't confirm or deny its existence, I have to think there is one) is secret. You say it's for a good reason--care to enlighten us?

I half agree with you--no one forces you to fly, and there are plenty of other ways to travel without showing an ID, so I don't think the policy is unreasonable. But I don't get the reason as to why the policy or the law, assuming there is one (and since the Justice department wouldn't confirm or deny its existence, I have to think there is one) is secret. You say it's for a good reason--care to enlighten us?

My guess is that everyone with an ID is in a database. Along with an estimate of your proclivity to offer violence, support violence, etc.

My guess is that everyone with an ID is in a database. Along with an estimate of your proclivity to offer violence, support violence, etc.
That's the no-fly list you're talking about. Unfortunately, it also includes people who have been involved only in peaceful protest, and it's damn near impossible to get your name off of it.

I half agree with you--no one forces you to fly, and there are plenty of other ways to travel without showing an ID, so I don't think the policy is unreasonable. But I don't get the reason as to why the policy or the law, assuming there is one (and since the Justice department wouldn't confirm or deny its existence, I have to think there is one) is secret. You say it's for a good reason--care to enlighten us?

THe ID policy falls under a whole set of screening requirements (which change not infrequently depending upon other factors). They are not published, so malcontents don't get a heads up from the government on the exact amount of screening they will pass through before boarding a plane. It's just a security pre-caution really. And since there are no penalties for not co-operating with a screener (other than not getting on the plane) it doesn't bother me. Quite sensible really. The government doesn't detail where all its troops are deployed either, I look at this the same way.

Of course, people might say, what if you get strip/body cavity searched, because of a secret law. I say meh. I fly internationally more than domestic, and I'd still run that risk from the jackboots in the US customs department, whatever the TSA rules are.

Let's take this a step further.

The credit card companies sell information to thrid parties.

Sometimes, the information is in bulk, and you are not identified. This information can be analyzed - they can determine who travels to certain destinations at certain times of the year - who buys certain items - etc.

Then they can go back and say, "give us a list of people who buy item X".

At that point, they know quite a bit about everyone on that list, based on data mining.

Cross reference that with other information, and the picture gets a bit clearer.

My assumption is that they not only identify people who are dangerous, but also identify people who sympathize with certain political causes.

If you've ever written a check or given a donation to certain organizations using your credit card, you're probably on a list.

That's the no-fly list you're talking about. Unfortunately, it also includes people who have been involved only in peaceful protest, and it's damn near impossible to get your name off of it.

I don't necessarily agree with the no-fly list as it presently it.

I don't necessarily agree with the no-fly list as it presently it.
There are other lists.

For example, attendance at certain military training gets you right on the Secret Service "B" list.

Let's take this a step further.

The credit card companies sell information to thrid parties.

Sometimes, the information is in bulk, and you are not identified. This information can be analyzed - they can determine who travels to certain destinations at certain times of the year - who buys certain items - etc.

Then they can go back and say, "give us a list of people who buy item X".

At that point, they know quite a bit about everyone on that list, based on data mining.

Cross reference that with other information, and the picture gets a bit clearer.

My assumption is that they not only identify people who are dangerous, but also identify people who sympathize with certain political causes.

If you've ever written a check or given a donation to certain organizations using your credit card, you're probably on a list.

Meh. The government can just storm into your financial records without any reason under the pretext of an audit. They've been doing this to political enemies since at least kennedy. No-one talks it but its true.

And donate over $250 (maybe $500 smunkee would know), you have to tell them directly where the money is going anyway.

Meh. The government can just storm into your financial records without any reason under the pretext of an audit. They've been doing this to political enemies since at least kennedy. No-one talks it but its true.

And donate over $250 (maybe $500 smunkee would know), you have to tell them directly where the money is going anyway.
It's more than $250 to a specific cause.

For example if I donate $3000 to my church this year then I have to put all thier info on a form.

If I donate $3000 in general, but it is split up between 20 charities each recieving $150.00 then no documentation is needed.

*I am talking about cash donations here, donations of goods are a whole other set of rules. ;)

It's more than $250 to a specific cause.

For example if I donate $3000 to my church this year then I have to put all thier info on a form.

If I donate $3000 in general, but it is split up between 20 charities each recieving $150.00 then no documentation is needed.

*I am talking about cash donations here, donations of goods are a whole other set of rules. ;)

What if you don't want to declare it? I mean, if I don't want to write off my tithe, I don't have to declare it.

It's more than $250 to a specific cause.

For example if I donate $3000 to my church this year then I have to put all thier info on a form.

If I donate $3000 in general, but it is split up between 20 charities each recieving $150.00 then no documentation is needed.

*I am talking about cash donations here, donations of goods are a whole other set of rules. ;)

Thanks for the info.

So I could just claim that I gave $5000 last year, and wouldn't need any documentation? I am curious, when they audit you, can you just say that all you paid was cash, and you have no reciepts &c.

What if you don't want to declare it? I mean, if I don't want to write off my tithe, I don't have to declare it.
It depends, on Schedule A you don't have to take all deductions available, but that law could change.


It is always a good idea to keep all your financial records for 5 years, even if you don't want to deduct your tithe, if you ever get audited proof of donation could be useful. In general the IRS can only go back 3 years, but if they suspect fraud they can go back as far as the want 5 years is a safe medium though (since I have never known them to venture much farther in the past.)

I do want to make clear though that in some instances (like a schedule C) you do have to take all available and legal deductions.

Thanks for the info.

So I could just claim that I gave $5000 last year, and wouldn't need any documentation? I am curious, when they audit you, can you just say that all you paid was cash, and you have no reciepts &c.
If you tithed at a church as a regular member, they'll give you a yearly statement of how much you gave (if you use those cute envelopes and wrote checks).

Thanks for the info.

So I could just claim that I gave $5000 last year, and wouldn't need any documentation? I am curious, when they audit you, can you just say that all you paid was cash, and you have no reciepts &c.
If you donate more than $500 to a specific charity they are supposed to give you a letter of proof at either the time of donation or the end of the year. (the actual year, not the tax year) If you donate anything though I request that my tax clients keep some type of documentation (canceled check, reciept, ect.) for three main reasons
1) for thier own records
2) in case they get audited
3) so we don't miss some random $5 donation at tax time

The IRS can disallow any deductions that they feel were not adequetly recorded and if they feel that it wasn't "just a mistake" that you don't have documentation they can fine/arrest you for tax fraud.