From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,alt.privacy,uiuc.civil-liberty
Subject: Notes from _Search and Seizure_
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:33:00 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

Last week my local PBS TV station broadcast a show called _Search and
Seizure_. It was hosted by Roger Mudd. I think it was produced by
KCET. For more information, call PBS Video at 1-800-424-7963.

Here are my notes from the show:

[I've guessed at a lot of spelling. Corrections are welcome.
(Corrections of fact, too.)]

In colonial America, the British government had several ways to
authorize "general" searches. With the right authorization (which
wasn't to hard to get), a government official could search anything or
anybody and could "draft" local officials to help in the search. At
least one form of authorization lasted as long as the King lived.

The main goal of the searchers was to find untaxed (i.e. smuggled)
goods which almost every ship tried to carry. So the victims of the
searches were basically merchants who very often were trying to hide
their violations of the law.

[If I remember right:] When the King died, a local government official
applied to colonial legislature to reauthorized his "Writ of
Assistance". A man named Otis argued against reauthorization saying
that the broad searches were unconstitutional in that they violated
the liberties of Englishmen. Young Thomas Madison (or was it
Jefferson?)  heard this argument and was impressed. This argument was
an influence on our 4th Amendment which reads:

   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.

=====

It typically takes police about 2 hours to get a search warrant for,
for example, a house.

Whenever the Court looks at an alleged search and seizure case it decides
1) was the incident search/seizure?
2) was the government action "reasonable"?

Before the Exclusionary Rule, the 4th Amendment had no teeth and was
ignored. You can see this by looking at the TV show _Dragnet_ before
and after _Mapp v. Ohio_, 1961, the Supreme Court case that extended
the exclusionary rules to states. The rule was applied earlier to the
to the Feds in _Weeks_(sp?).

Warren Court - Applied exclusionary rule to the states
Berger Court - cut back on the rule
              1) allowed cars to be searched with a warrant even if not an
                    emergency
              2) allowed evidence to be used if the magistrate (rather than
                     the cop) makes a mistake on the search warrant.
Reinquest Court - Has limited what is considered a search/seizure (see below)

The Sheriff of Boward County, Florida (Nick Navaro?) thinks that the
"drug trade in this country has been one of the most evil situations
have have hand in history" and doesn't think law enforcement should be
restricted because the founders didn't anticipate how bad drugs are.

In the recent _Bostick_ case, the Supreme Court said that a man at the
back of a bus, blocked by armed cops (who were making random checks of
buses) was not seized because he could have left if he had wanted to,
had known to ask, and had asked.

The usually standard of getting a search warrant is "probable cause".
The mere fact that you assert your constitutional right doesn't
constitute probable cause.

In New Orleans, the union for customs employees sued to stop urine
testing as a condition of promotion. They lost because the court said
they had "less expectation of privacy". [cmk: Isn't the "expectation
rule" circular and self-fulfilling?] The urine tests so far have come
up negative 3600 times and positive 5 times.

The courts (Court?) seldom sees a 4th amendment right if drugs are
involved. Of the last 33 cases involving the 4th amendment and drugs,
the government won 30.

The Court says that the following actions by law enforcement are not
search or seizure and therefore do not require a warrant or probable
cause:

* flying a helicopter over your house taking pictures with a camera
that can see things as small as a dime.

* recording the numbers you dial on your phone

* looking at your bank records

* looking through your garbage at the curb

* going on to your posted-no-trespassing land and looking around
and looking into out buildings.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections