You must understand that many laws and rules like the 4th amendment isn't merely done for one purpose and has many alternate purposes. First of all you say that cops aren't allowed to search this or search that or what you claim as your statement about cops having less power. I have taken a couple courses in criminal justice and for example if a cop asks you to search the trunk of your car or you glove compartment, saying "no" is a justifiable cause to search it.

Of course the cop would not claim that as a justifiable cause, because lying does exist in this world and if any cop wanted to search your trunk he would and if there was a problem after he would simply say you allowed him or he smelled something. Now let me get to my initial point which is that the 4th amendment is to restrain the authority/government from exercising too much power on the citizens and stripping us away of our freedoms.


I've had multiple parties with friends and alcohol was involved along with music and when the cops came, we opened the door and they walked in, no questions asked, nothing. They have much more power than you think they do and unless you carry a video camera around they will get away with anything.

So if you were to strip away the 4th amendment than I believe your rights would be compromised much more. Me personally, I believe their are not enough laws against the authorities or the government to prevent them from disgracing your freedom.


You are like the guy who asks "who cares, if you have anything to hide than you should be put in jail." but that begs the question, if we start letting cops into our houses, if we go along with the british and put cameras on every street corner, where are we heading? we are slowly but surely giving away our freedoms. Just because Marijuana for example is illegal and you use it, doesn't mean the morality of that law right, so if you ask me if I'd rather let Marijuana be used by people or allow cops to enter random houses of people without a warrant and compromise one's freedom in their own home, I'd allow the Marijuana consumption.

__________________
“Landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed” - Karl Marx

I agree. To give the police the authority to do whatever they want on assumption of what could be there. That idea is the worse idea ever. Your better shooting a target in firing range. Everyone is guility of something. "Have you run a yellow light". "have you played music past a certain time." "Have you ever built a fire to make smores" All those are illegal acts, but a person is quilty something minor sometime in their life. If a person says no then they are the biggest liar out there. You are a human not god, They are minor.Prisions would be full for petty crimes. You could be guility of dislike of some politicans and have something showing that in your house. They could arrest you for treason against the goverment and you as "threat" against others. Everyone don't like everybody. All it takes is a liar jackass to be corrupt and use their power to eliminate his competition. Like stated before, you will have more doors kicked down and it would be like the russian secret police dragging you out the door.

This meshes perfectly with the OP . . . As absurd as it might sound the abridgment of one right can be the constitutional justification for the abridgment of another . . .

In an amicus brief submitted by the US Conference of Mayors (228Kb pdf) to the Supreme Court, they argue that aggressive "stop-and-frisk" programs are legitimized simply because a handgun ban is in force.

The reasoning is, since all handguns are banned all handguns are illegal so any suspicion of a person carrying a handgun can be acted on with a temporary detention and search.

"Firearms regulation plays a central role in enhancing police authority to engage in stop-and-frisk tactics. When applicable law bans the possession or carrying of firearms, a stop and frisk conducted by an officer who reasonably suspects that an individual is illegally carrying a firearm—such as a suspicious bulge in a waistband—is considered constitutionally reasonable. . . .

When applicable law generally permits individuals to carry firearms, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk even when there is reason to believe that a suspect is armed or dangerous because there is no indication of a violation of law. . . .

Thus, weapons searches were central to the New York stop-and-frisk strategy. New York’s restrictive gun control laws, in turn, facilitated this strategy; without such restrictive laws, the most important legal basis for stop-and-frisk would have disappeared."

So, the argument is, please don't apply the 2nd Amendment to the states because if our handgun bans are invalidated our citizens will get to enjoy 4th Amendment protections as well!
.
.

My reading of the original inspiration for the 4th Amendment was to impede government. The police were regarded simply as the agency of government, but the precedent (under British colonial rule) was a practice of identifying troublemakers (that is, people speaking or writing against colonial rule), and simply breaking in and hauling them off. Imagine what an enforced 4th Amendment would have meant for the Jews in Nazi Germany.

Another irritating government technique was harrassment. Targeted individuals could be stopped and shaken down arbitrarily. Their homes could be searched for no particular reason other than fishing expeditions (and when the search was complete, the home was trashed and valuables stolen or smashed).

There is a disturbing number of cases in the US where the search warrants had the wrong address, and the cops terrorized elderly citizens and trashed their houses and wrecked their property ripping into furniture and walls looking for nonexistent drugs. And the courts have consistently held that those poor folks had no recourse, just kind of bad luck, sorry about that, too bad, it was an honest mistake some clerk made filling out the warrent, could happen to anyone! And THAT is how the police treat someone suspected of a crime, or even someone some powerful person wants to frighten or give a warning to or whatever.

So the requirement that the police have a valid reason for a search, and solid evidence that the search will be fruitful, is an essential protection for the common citizen. The police have the law, the guns, the money, the protection of the courts, the organization required to stonewall any external investigations into their operations. The danger to society of giving the police too much scope is FAR greater than the danger of not catching criminals because the police are hobbled by restrictions.

The warrant clause of the amendment was effectively adulterated by Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). That's not to say I think the amendment is perfect as is, but SC rulings aren't the right way to fix problems with constitutional provisions.

A big problem with it as presently interpreted is the exclusionary rule, which says evidence obtained by illegal search or seizure must be disregarded, and which has no constitutional basis that I'm aware of.

Most legal scholars regard the exclusionary rule as being derived directly from the 4th Amendment. Imagine if the police had the power to just randomly grab people on the street and search them. And IF those people had something illegal in their possession, then the cops could charge them. Or the cops must just start breaking into houses to search them. Anything they find could be brought into court and used to convict the pedestrian or homeowner.

In brief, if illegal search and seizure is unconstitutional, then you can't do it. The cops can't violate the constitution trying to maintain public safety. And so if they DO violate the constitution, the fruits of this violation can't be used against anyone.

__________________
I don't need to tell myself my morals are superior; it's obvious.
--Sibboleth

Because...?

Here's an analogy. Let's say I steal something valuable from a merchant. They track me down and arrest me. Should I be permitted to keep what I stole? Why can't I make use of what I illegally obtained? Why can't the cops make use of what they illegally obtained?

In the US, anyway, there are constitutional protections guaranteed to all citizens. And one of those protections is against the abuse of police power. There are rules the police must follow, to stay within the law, as they carry out their duties. If they start getting rewarded for breaking the law, we'd see more of it. The political philosophy in the US, for better or worse, is that the police have a great deal of power, and the challenge is to restrict and not increase that power. Where such restrictions are not applied, there are police states.

__________________
I don't need to tell myself my morals are superior; it's obvious.
--Sibboleth

No, it's a hindrance to tyranny.

__________________
Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal? Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
http://politicalfriends.prophpbb.com/

The analogy isn't even close unless the merchant stole from you first.The question ignores the fact that LE officers act on behalf of the state; so the question is why the state can't make use of what was illegally obtained by its agents.Evidence being admissible in court hardly equates to rewarding illegal behavior if the the lawbreakers are penalized by dismissal, imprisonment or whatever. Excluding that evidence penalizes the state for no good reason.