As an ex NYC resident I still pay some attention to what goes on there. One thing that caught my eye was a ruing that the NYC police had the right to without warrant or justifiable cause search the possessions of people riding on the subways.
Some background to my main point:
Now way back before the thirteen colonies formed the United States of America the Crown sent soldiers to America to protect the interests of the king and other interests. During their stay colonists were forced to house these soldiers, their personal property, their homes, their correspondence and their person were subject to unqualified search, i.e., searches at the whim of any serving soldier or officer of the king's army.
These were some of the reasons the the colonists gave for seeking independence.
Once the United States were formed they created a constitution which every elected official of a state or the federal government is expected to uphold and defend.
Alright with that as the background I would like first to have the reader consider what uphold and defend actually means when an elected official swears that he or she will do so.
It says that the constitution is very much the heart of the nation and in the same way that we would defend our country so should the articles of the constitution be defended.
With the very breathe and blood. It was simply that important to the nation.
Now other people have wishy-washy ways of diluting that intent and since it wasn't spelled out in cold hard language they can get away with that.. it's what a lawyers do but here's the literal definitions of those two critcal words ion the oath of office:
Up-hold - verb
1. to support or defend, as against opposition or criticism.
De-fend - verb
1. to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury
2. to maintain by argument, evidence, etc; uphold
Those are pretty clear definitions.
I suppose if the framers had thought spoiled brats would try to find loopholes that they might have written something on the the order of thou shalt not bend, spindle, mutilate or shred the articles.
But that's just an aside. With the background and those two definitions established let's take a look at a one of the Articles of the Bill of Rights which is a part of our nations constitution.
Amendment IV.
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.
That article says clearly, no blanket grant shall be given to search people or anything belonging to them.
It does not say that if someone looks shifty or shady any agent of a civil government can demand that a citizen allow them to search their person ,(which means the possessions they have with them as well), their documents, or their homes unless they go before a judge and present good reason for the need to search then obtain a warrant that specifies what they are search for and where they wish to search for it.
A thought I had about whether the amendment covers email and text files; don't we speak of the things we write on our computers as documents?
And so I think to myself.. geez the cops in nyc are randomly searching womens hand bags.. peoples backpacks, etc. Am I glad I moved out of there in 2002? Yep, I think so.
But it saddens me beyond words.
