The right to privacy...

[GtoRA2]

I just read through the Bill of rights and did not see this one, I have a friend who says it is the 4th amendment, that gives us this right, but reading it I do not agree, so where is it?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendments 11-27

[john9001]

the Florida State Constitution has a privacy clause, do not know about other states.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by GtoRA2

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.

To me that says, in oldspeak, stay the fek out of my hard drive until you've got probable cause for a warrant.  In today's society, I don't think it's a stretch to declare a hard drive's information a part of someone's papers and effects.  

Anything you find in it without a warrant should fall under the exclusionary rule... ie, no warrant, not admissable in court.  

If the RIAA wants to prosecute someone for things on their hard drive, it should go something like this:

1.  Catch someone sharing copyrighted material.  Document it somehow.  
2.  Give evidence of download to police, report it as a crime.    
3.  Police use evidence of download as probable cause to obtain search warrant of person's hard drive.
4.  Search person's hard drive physically (or possibly electronically, don't know how electronic searches fall under 4th amendment).  
5.  Prosecute if evidence of crime is found.

[vorticon]

tarmac is right...anyway if anyone decided to search for evidence of THAT crime over half the population of the computer world would be in jail...

[GtoRA2]

This came from a friend and I talking about the megans law. I think. LOL

The law that states sex offenders will be kept track of and the areas they live in will be told they are their.

He thinks it is wrong and a voilation of the convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s rights.

I say screw that convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s and protect the people who do not hurt others.

[Tarmac]

LOL... thought this was in relation to the mp3 thread.  Sorry sir.

Most sincere hijack ever.

[miko2d]

A minor correction - no amendment gives us any rigts. Not the 1st, not the 2nd, not the 4th.

 Constitution specifically grants the federal government certain rights and any rights not surrendered to the federal government  are reserved for people.

 So most amendments - especially those mentioned above, just affirm those rights but not give it to us from the government. It never had those to give up to us.

 We would have had the right to bear arms even without the 2nd amendment becasue Constitution never gave the government the right to regulate the arms.

 Same with privacy.

 miko

[SOB]

Your friend is right, it is a violation of their rights.  Of course, once they were convicted of molesting a child, they should have been brought out to the steps of the courthouse and shot.

So...I propose, we repeal Megan's Law, and enact immediate execution for anyone convicted of molestation, and enact a retro-active culling of the herd for the ones who have been previously convicted.



SOB

[Mickey1992]

A sex offender's prior record is public knowledge.  The fact that all 50 states now have laws that law enforcement must make this public information public is not a violation of anyone's rights.

[GtoRA2]

Hell yeah!

Rapists too!

[SOB]

Not that I give a flying poop, but...  The violation of their rights isn't in the fact that their records are public, it's that you're singling them out for further persecution.  However, if the initial punishment was death, there wouldn't be any issue with subjecting them to further humiliation after thier sentence is carried out.


SOB

[Tarmac]

So if I'm drunk, piss in public, and get arrested and convicted of indecent exposure, do I count as a sex offender under these laws?

[crowMAW]

Once convicted, felons lose most of their civil rights.  It varies by state how these rights are restored upon release.  If the felon is paroled they are still convicts in the penal system, but they are basically released on their own recognizance with limited supervision.  If the felon has served his/her complete sentence then depending on the state, some of their civil rights are automatically restored.  However, some states like Florida have a very cumbersome civil rights restoration process.

Some examples of rights stripped of felons include the right to own a gun, the right to vote, the right to privacy (i.e. the right to be secure in one's person and property) and the right to freely associate.

Some states require a pardon in order to have rights restored.  Have you ever noticed the huge list of pardons an out going President may confer?  Usually, those are felons who were convicted in Federal court and live in a state that deems that a Federal conviction cannot be pardoned by a governor due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

[miko2d]

vorticon: tarmac is right...anyway if anyone decided to search for evidence of THAT crime over half the population of the computer world would be in jail...

 You assume that starting prosecuting people for crimes of stealing music (as opposed to, say, stealing bread for their starving children) instead of ignoring them will not make them change their behavior.

 Do you have any justifications for that assumption?


GtoRA2: He thinks it is wrong and a voilation of the convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s rights.
 I say screw that convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s and protect the people who do not hurt others.

 That is understandable. But do you propose to amend the law to do so or to violate the law to do so?

 Because there is a law that says you cannot add punishments to that assigned by court and you cannot apply new laws retroactively.

 We can legally change laws so that punishment for sex-offenders includes life-long monitoring and community notification - to the offenders that got convicted under that law, not the past offences.

 But is is illegal to do so without such laws, however those people deserve it.

Mickey1992: A sex offender's prior record is public knowledge. The fact that all 50 states now have laws that law enforcement must make this public information public is not a violation of anyone's rights.

 Maybe. Maybe not - it certainly sounds like a punishment. It was public information who were jews and who were homosexuals in nazi germany but once the government required them to wear yellow stars and pink triangles, we called it prosecution.


Tarmac: So if I'm drunk, piss in public, and get arrested and convicted of indecent exposure, do I count as a sex offender under these laws?

 Yes. The laws written in haste do not reflect the difference and each state can supply it's own definition of "sex offence". A guy accused  slapping his coworkers on the butt or a teenager who turned 18 while his girlfriend is still 17 and 11 months - and accused of statutory rape - both get labeled "sex offenders" for life with no chance of decent job, mobs breaking their windows, etc.
 And since it's not a court-mandated punishment, one cannot apply to court to cancel it.

 Quite a problem for people who got caught in it and assigned to the same category as violend predators.
 
 Much like the federal firearm law that forbids owning a weapon by anyone who have been issued a restraining order - with mandatory 10-15 year sentence.
 The problem is that applying for and automatcally granting a restraining order is a standard practice in divorce proceedings - and is actually mandatory issued to both spouses in some states.

 So a man suddenly finds himself in violation of a federal law - that prevents him from ever owning a firearm without conviction, jusy and due process!
 If he gets rid of the firearms, BTW, he goes to jail for violating the divorce court order banning sale of common property until divorce is finalised.

 A doctor recently got jail sentence for such a firearm ownership violation.

 miko

[Maverick]

Tarmac,

In answer to your last post, no. Those are all misdemeaners and have no impact on your constitutional rights. Only one misdemeanor does at this time and that involves domestic abuse situations. That is the subject of another thread.

In regards to the "rights" of a child molester or other sexual predator. Those offenses are FELONIES. Felonies carry with them a certain loss of rights under the constitution. The right to bear arms, vote and one or two others. (My memory is failing me right now)

In regards to the so called right of privacy. This follows from the 4th ammendment as posted earlier. The term "papers" has been interpreted loosely as a result of the advances in technology that the founding Fathers had no clue about. AFAIC this is proper as Justices are applying the intent of the law to keep up with the times.

Sexual predators (certain offenses) fall into a rather dark area of society. They are statistically far more likely to re-offend than just about any other criminal. The fact that each of their offenses has a dramatic impact on their victims indicates an exceptional danger to society. To protect society, a fundamental task of government, changes were made regarding maintaining current locations on these folks. Because of this, their "rights" were abridged in a limited manner. The part taken away was the ability to remain hidden so that the public at large can maintain a reasonable (I hate that term) level of security in their lives/homes from a sexual predator. The sexual predator STILL has the right against unreasonable search and siezure as a warrant must still be obtained to search their home / papers etc. based on probable cause. Note that this is more than mere suspicion alone. A judge must be convinced that a certain amount of belief that a crime has been or is being committed.
 Now for a clearer and maybe more accurate explanation one of the lawyers on the bbs should step in here.    (eeewwweee did I just say lawyer?!?!?!?!)

Does this help gents.??