Talk:Warrantless searches in the United States/Archive 1

==Where is COINTELPRO--==? 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I added disputed to this page for the following reasons.

When I wrote the History of Warrantless searches section and I included references from both parties and others going back to the days of George Washington. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton have used these tools when dealing with foriegn intelligence threats. I posted links to all of the relevent exacutive orders that are now gone. The FISA Court of Appeals rulings about this have been removed as well. In short this article has been whitewashed and is almost useless and filled with POV. I will try to get the relevent data together and repost it, which I am confident will be vandalized in a heartbeat. Since I am the original author of the history of warrantless seraches section, its only fair that at least the basic information that made up the article in the first place still remain. Bachs

Article Partially restored

Its coming along, I had to go and look up the references again and reread the FISA Court of Appeals case from 2002. Its not as pretty as I want it yet but it is coming along. Lets just hope it isnt vandalized by the time I wake up tomarrow. Bachs 06:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe...

Since George Washington?

Seriously, if any information could be corraborated using strict research guidelines, then there would not be a problem because the information would have remained. Surely in your comments, you could merely give links so we can all see this information for ourselves. I know that [Cornell University] has many pivotal SCOTUS decisions in their collection.

Out of sheer curiosity, I googled "Supreme Court decisions, warrantless searches", went to Cornell's search engine and found 121 results. That's not 121 cases...many of them are either synopses, decisions and dissents tied to the same cases. The earliest one (out of a search of "all cases" was [Katz v. United States] (1967) involving wagering through the use of a payphone. More results were found when merely using "searches, seizures" as the search parameters.

The vast majority of decisions concerning searches, seizures and warrents since the 1950's dealt with local, state and federal narcotics cases. I find it difficult to believe that before WWI there were cases involving searches that did not have to do with [union-busting]. There is one subsequent case, [Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp]., dealing with the [Comstock Act] as well. This had to do with sending contraception through the mail.

It is hardly clear after pouring through case after case of Supreme Court decisions (even when limited to the last quarter of the 20th Century) that such sweeping generalizations that you submitted were "censored." Maybe your facts did not pan out. Maybe you looked through a rather closed lens and only shared the parts that supported your pet thesis. I don't know, since I just got to this page and had not seen the Wikipedia entry before today (7-24-06).

Perhaps the truth is out there somewhere. It would take a lifetime of researching SCOTUS decisions with all their subtle nuances of determining lawful and [constitutional] precidents. Sadly, the Internet does not require from all of us law degrees and a lifetime of legal experience to opine upon what any past or present SCOTUS may or may not have meant. Truly, it takes no wit to infer whatever we so choose onto any information. Dead people cannot give us their implied meanings unless you are lucky enough to posess every single autobiography ever written.

I hope I'm not being too hard on you. After all, even in Wikipedia one must support one's opinions. Also, personal opinions are not exactly appropriate for an encyclopedia. However, you are welcome to create your own blog somewhere else on the Internet and say what you like there. Of course, that's just my opinion.

---

Dear unsigned partisan anonymous contributor....

You say that you dont believe that warrantless searches for war or foriegn intelligence matters can be sighted all the way back to George Washington....... May I please direct you to the main article that is sourced that you obviously did not read on the main page.....

Bachs 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions

This source says that the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as allowing certain exceptions

• Citizens in the United State of America have a fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer is an arm of the government. As an arm of the government, an officer is required to obtain a warrant whenever the officer is going to conduct a search and/or a seizure of a person, or a person’s private property within the boarders of the United States. The Supreme Court has also ruled that sometimes there are exceptions to this law and a police officer can search and/or seize without first obtaining a warrant. These can be called warrantless searches. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sinebot. I gotta hit that dash squiggle thing more often!

Anyway, both this article and probable cause leave out a lot of stuff. I almost feel these omissions make the articles POV, but I guess I can just add the missing stuff - as long as no one objects! --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

History

The following quote can be found in the "History" section:

"The committee report found the "Americans who violated no criminal law and represented no genuine threat to the 'national security' have been targeted, regardless of the stated predicate. In many cases, the implementation of wiretaps and bugs has also been fraught with procedural violations, even when the required procedures were meager, thus compounding the abuse. The inherently intrusive nature of electronic surveillance, moreover, has enabled the Government to generate vast amounts of information - unrelated to any legitimate governmental interest - about the personal and political lives of American citizens."

However, I am unable to find it in the source document. Any clarification on this would be appreciated. Disestablishmentarianism 14:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved notes

Moved notes I had here to User:Seahawk01/Talk:Warrantless searches in the United States.

Seahawk01 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)