Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's often the best part! The comments are never closed; you're always welcome to add to the discussion. Also, if you get tired of clicking on the buttons, you can always use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to move around.

Buy the books on Amazon ___ ___
Join the conversation! There are now 5 comments on “Police vs Privacy pg 05
    • That falls under the heading of “border searches,” which we’ll discuss later in the chapter. Hang on, we’ll get there.

      It’s a misnomer to call it a “constitution-free zone,” though. These searches are within the bounds of what the Supreme Court has had to say on the matter. That phrase is the kind of hysterical overkill that makes it hard to take calls for reform seriously. (I think the ACLU is the one that started doing this.)

      And the page you linked to is so full of errors, it’s hard to even know where to start. There may well be an issue with using (constitutionally permitted) administrative searches for the purpose of catching criminals, but misinformation and hysteria aren’t the way to deal with it.

  1. Vroman says

    This is a joke, right? When is the last time a judge actually rejected evidence due to 4th Amendment? The constitution has been dead for decades. The cop will just lie that he had some probable cause. Every time.

    • Suppression of evidence happens all the time. Whenever you hear of a “technicality,” it’s usually about someone’s 4th amendment rights being trampled, which the media conveniently omits.

Class Participation