Violating the 4th Amendment guarantees against illegal searches and seizures is not the way to solve crime problems.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures.
Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment.
The Constitution defends all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. What constitutes reasonableness depends upon threat.
Obama's respect for the Constitution does not apply to protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as Obama's deeply intrusive National Security Agency programs prove.
If we're going to change the laws, let's change them in ways which makes it easier to catch criminals, and yet at the same time protect the Second Amendment rights of our law-abiding citizens.
A person's mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not give rise to probable cause to search that person.
Whether you breach the Fourth Amendment 20 percent of the time or 100 percent of the time, it's still not the point. The point is whether or not you still collect millions of people's information with a single warrant.
Satisfying a profit motive must never be the reason for law enforcement, and it certainly must never be allowed to support the seizure of personal property by those who we trust to protect and defend our nation and our Constitution.
Targets don't fight crime.
The government can still conduct clandestine searches of innocent people's private information such as library, medical, and financial records. This is wrong and should have been addressed in a true compromise.
No opposing quotes found.