« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The War on Drugs is killing the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment, one of the most important rights Americans hold is, under attack.  I’m not a broken record.  It clearly states:

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.

But everything is changing.  Our guy, George W. Bush pushed warrantless wiretaps on those inside the United States in the name of terror.  Their guy, Barack Obama ordered the assassination of a United States citizen without giving him a trial to determine his guilt or innocence.

We have discussed the encroachment on the Fourth Amendment by TSA in airports.

http://griffinelection.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/does-the-fourth-amendment-mean-anything-anymore/

But the true damage to the Fourth Amendment over the last generation has come from the courts, in interpreting the right in light of a police officer’s ability to search for drugs.  It is really said that the “war” on the drug trade as resulted in such a legal blow to law abiding citizens. 

The war on drugs has been an unmitigated disaster.  That is not to say that we should not wage it.  But it is to ask, at what cost? 

Our courts have given us Terry frisks.  Cops have the ability to search cars – not with probable cause, but with a lower-tiered “suspicion.”  Although people now live out of their cars, nine old justices have determined that there isn’t a proper “expectation of privacy” in your car.  Depending on where you are, there isn’t an expectation of privacy in your person.  If you are at a friend’s house, there may not be an expectation of privacy.  On and on it goes. 

The fact is, the Courts have erased the basic principle of probable cause because the exceptions have become dangerously close to overwhelming the rule.  The protections of the Fourth Amendment no longer seem as robust when an officer can pressure an uninformed citizen to waive the rights or get a warrant to search every nook and cranny simply of their life because a citizen has a drug addiction. 

The solution, unfortunately, is going to have to be a libertarian push-back within both political parties.  On the right, we are going to have to push people like Romney, who may not be inclined to bolster Constitutional rights, to nominate judges that aren’t just conservative – but libertarian.  *Pro-life libertarian.  On the left, Democrats need to be pushing their representatives to stand up for civil rights, something they’ve lost since Obama started killing everyone with his drones. 

Finally, I would also encourage all parents to teach their children their rights when a police officer pulls them over.  Every time we take our children through an airport, we need to remind them that although we are under the authority of TSA and must submit, their actions are unconstitutional.  Our private schools need to be teaching more in the way of civics and Constitutional rights.

If we don’t push back, the Fourth Amendment will die by a thousand cuts.

COMMENTS

  • davenj1

    When it comes to law and order, I am no liberal by any stretch of the imagination. However, you are right to note that the scales have been tipped too heavily in favor of police tactics. There are some here and elsewhere who will say, “So what? If you aren’t doing anything illegal, then so what?” These are the same people aghast at TSA searches of grandma at the airport. Either it is or it isn’t. Also, the gung-ho law and order types need to look at history. When Miranda was decided, everyone thought this was the end of orderly society, that criminals would roam free because the hands of the police were now tied. BUT- law enforcement adapted quite nicely.
    As concerns the war on drugs, the Supreme Court has taken two cases next year that address the 4th amendment and sniffs by drug-searching dogs. One case involves a home, another a car. Also, this term, they decided a warrant is required to place a GPS tracking device on a car. But then again, they also decided that anyone arrested for anything can be strip searched.

  • Dave_A

    Remember: the scope of the 4th was excessively enlarged by the liberal Warren court… We have, since that time, gone to excessively favoring the accused over their victims & the interests of justice.

    There was nothing wrong with W’s wiretap program – the fact that a caller was a US citizen doesn’t change the fact that wiretapping foreigners shouldn’t require a warrant…

    There was also nothing wrong with Obama killing al-Awaki – the man was fighting in an enemy military force, he is not entitled to a trial – he’s to be killed on sight by any member of the US military or intelligence community…

    This is another area where libertarians aren’t going to find many friends on the right…

    • aesthete

      There’s been some real disgust with the TSA and other federal law enforcement agencies on the right for a good long while — they are (rightly) perceived to be incompetent, imperious bureaucracies which overburden the general public and which have their own political axes to grind, as well. From my observation, your… one-sided defense of institutions like the DHS, TSA, FBI, CIA, and other such agencies is much rarer on the right these days than griffin’s position above, and will continue to be such so long as these institutions remain as inept and politicized as they have been in recent years.

      • Dave_A

        a violation of the Constitution…

        Most will agree with me, that he was an enemy officer & thus entitled to absolutely nothing from the US government, besides the round of ordnance that eventually killed him…

        Further, the practical issues with determining ‘citizenship’ based on a phone call in real-time (eg, you’re wiretapping a foreigner – how do you tell if a caller (or call-ee) is an American citizen, in order to comply with the ACLU’s ridiculous standard for wiretaps) make complaints about W’s security programs an exercise in absurdity….

        • aesthete

          even I wouldn’t disagree with you. I wouldn’t have had a problem with Al-Awaki’s death in the context of a battlefield kill where he placed himself in that position.

          I do have a problem with the fact that the executive branch unilaterally undertook the assassination of a US citizen in a context outside the battlefield without any sort of oversight.

          *That’s* what many libertarians, and increasingly many conservatives, have a problem with. You’re not going to convince folks about the rightness of your cause if you don’t understand what about the security state bothers conservatives, or if you dismiss it all as tinfoil crap.

          Vis a vis wiretapping, the loss of government efficacy and other corner cases are a “problem” with literally any of our Constitutional protections. “The Fifth Amendment inhibits Officer Friendly’s ability to get the truth out of criminal scum.” “How was TSgt Smiley to know that the house he commandeered belonged to a citizen?” “The police have great intuition when it comes to criminals, and time is of the essence. How dare you let the safety of the community hinge on a judge’s warrant?” Etc. The latter half of the Bill of Rights, and indeed the entirety of the common law system, is a value judgement which states that the rights of the citizenry to be free of even the appearance of impropriety in the legal system is worth some costs. The common law system is the most expensive of all of the major legal systems in the world. You are right: Freedom in general complicates the job of law enforcement.

          • tcgeol

            If we have no expectation of privacy, then we have no freedom. There is always a good big government excuse for why any and all infringement on our lives is reasonable and legitimate. One expects such a defense from the left, but not the right.

    • Finrod

      There’s nothing like being groped by a TSA agent to make you realize how dead the Fourth Amendment is in this country currently.

      • Dave_A

        Yeah, it was an inconvenience to have to unpack whatever odd electronics I had in my bag (usually aircraft parts) so they could take a closer look…

        But airport security has always been seen as a ‘reasonable’ search under the 4th (along with searching persons entering other restricted areas – such as courthouses and military bases), and the pat-down search is about the only viable backup for the more traditional electronic methods available…

        Personally, I think airport security should be contracted out, like military base gate-guard duty is… The federal government tends to hire exactly the wrong people for the job, leading to a high ‘miss’ rate and other failed metrics…

        But the actual security methods aren’t a problem – just the (generally sub-par) federal staff performing them…

        • acat

          I question the conservatism of anyone who doesn’t have a problem with warrantless wiretaps.

          Mew

          • Dave_A

            foreign citizens, for military & intelligence-gathering purposes.

            I find it absurd that the nationality/identity of a 3rd-party-caller should bring a warrant requirement with it (what the ACLU was claiming).

            I would have a problem with warrantless wiretaps targeting the phones of US citizens suspected of a crime. But that’s not what’s being talked about here…

            What it was, was the targeting of foreigners, and ACLU trying to make a ‘civil rights violation’ out of the targeted foreigner communicating with a US citizen & having the citizen’s communication recorded on the foreign-intel wiretap….

            Personally, a reasonable standard is that if the target is a US citizen on US soil – or if the purpose is to bring criminal or civil charges, then a warrant should be required…

            If not, then tap away…

            P.S. The 4th’s key word is ‘unreasonable’ – and wiretapping for espionage purposes is not unreasonable.

          • acat

            Let’s suppose that I want to call my brother-in-law, who’s spending the week golfing in Scotland. (he’s the successful one in the family…)

            Does he give up his rights by getting on a plane?

            Mew

          • Dave_A

            That’s why the suggested policy contained the ‘or if’ part…

            We need a standard that requires warrants for all wiretaps used to bring charges against US citizens…

            But doesn’t require a warrant for military/intelligence activities that will not result in criminal prosecution…

            So, in your hypothetical, if your brother was being wiretapped on suspicion of, let’s say, insider trading… Then no, he doesn’t give up his rights…;

            If he joins AQ and starts levying war against the USA… Well, sorry, those folks don’t get to hide under ‘US Citizenship’… Send in the air strike (and if you have to wire-tap the guy to confirm targeting info, it’s obvious that a warrant is irrelevant in deciding weather to blow someone up or not)….

          • aesthete

            Discretion over whether a citizen has joined a hostile force, as well as whether he should be placed on the kill list, will reside with one man and his retainers.

            As an added bonus, we’re not allowed to know who’s on the list or whether they really have joined Al-Qaeda. Top-secret national security type stuff, doncha know.

            To sum it up, we’ll be killing citizens who we don’t know about who may have connections to Al-Qaeda, all without Constitutional sanction or democratic oversight, or any knowledge of what’s being done at all. But not to worry, the President will be handling this from top to bottom, and we’ve always had men of unimpeachable character occupying that office.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            I would have a large kill list. Micheal Moore goes on another trip to Cuba or Iran? BOOM, dead fat man!

            /jus kidding

          • Dave_A

            I mean, they COULD be US citizens – wouldn’t want to step on anyone’s ‘rights’..

            That’s my issue…

            Personally, I’d rather the HVT list be in the hands of the theater commander (CETNCOM), rather than POTUS…

            It’s not supposed to be a political consideration, and we shouldn’t be concerning ourselves with anything beyond ‘are they bad-enough-bad-guys to make it worth a $70k missile shot to kill them’….

            Al-Awaki? Definitely. Functional-equivalent of a full-Colonel…. Instrumental in multiple attack attempts… No, I don’t care where he was born….

          • aesthete

            There’s no case in which such an absurd standard would be held, even domestically — i.e., I as a citizen or a LEO could shoot a citizen in a hostage situation and be protected by the law given imminent peril. The Constitution says nothing about such situations.

            It does dictate a process for a citizen accused by anyone (including government) of committing a capital crime. I can’t say that I have all the answers for how that should be sorted out vis a vis extradition in hostile territories, but “let the President plan their targeted assassinations as he sees fit and God will sort them out” strikes me as such an unserious answer, that I must once again wonder at how one could so quickly miss the implications of same. An “are-they-bad-enough-bad guys” criterion is both incredibly vague, and subject to no one’s discretion but the President — it solves no problems. One might as well just say, I trust my betters to handle the issue, for that is essentially what your position boils down to.

          • Dave_A

            I’d leave it with the 4-star in charge of that theater, and let him make the decision based on ‘is the bad guy worth the cost of the missile’…

            Keep the decision entirely in military circles, and you’ll ensure that it’s military necessity not politics that determines who’s targeted…

            There’s been an HVT list in every single war we’ve fought… The only reason this one gets attention, is that some folks think they can make political hay with it, and the fact that some of the HVTs are being targeted outside places we have troops on the ground…

          • acat

            Shooting at a group of U.S. troops in a known war zone should count as “unequivocally admitting intent to renounce citizenship”.

            That said, whether you like it or not, country of origin matters. Not because it should matter … it didn’t matter whether the enemy was Chinese, Russian, Cambodian, Laotian, or Vietnamese … but because the Left find it a convenient way to push their anti-war goals.

            That said, the most convenient rebuttal would be a clarification of the circumstances under which a CLN is issued… but for that you’d need to nuke the brain-eater under the State Department from orbit and rebuild….

            Mew

            * Certificate of Loss of Nationality

          • acat

            and we all know how that turned out.

            Mew

          • Dave_A

            Just trying to come up with a reasonable position that keeps rights-of-the-accused protections for crime suspects, without requiring the CIA to put their fingers in their ears as soon as they discover someone talking on a bugged line is a citizen…

            The standard I envision is:

            Citizen-at-home, or citizen overseas for the purpose of legal action? Warrant.

            Non-citizen anywhere, or Citizen overseas for military/intelegence purposes? No warrant needed.

            Probably the best way to determine it, is to just leave the exclusionary rule as it is for criminal prosecutions… And allow the intelligence services to do their thing for situations that don’t end in a courtroom… Information-sharing between agencies would be OK, but there would be no prosecutions brought based on ‘warrantless wiretaps’ (that evidence would be inadmissible in court) or the ‘fruit’ thereof…

          • acat

            Better to chop the tree down, burn the logs, and salt the earth, but then I’m one of those extremist libertarians.

            I don’t see the objection to requiring warrants for every wiretap, since we cannot know who’s actually holding the phone. This isn’t, by the way, “tying the hands of the CIA”. It’s asking them to behave like they give a rat’s left nut about the rights of those they’re protecting.

            Mew