Letting friends in the beautiful state of Mississippi not to vote for Jim Hood Attorney General 2011 and helping the message that Mr. Hood is corrupt enough to sponsor big telecoms takeover (which goes hand-in-hand with the threat to Net Neutrality) while bypassing the 4th Amendments guarantee of warrants prior to a search and seizure (excluding Terry Stops aka Stop and Frisks [Terry v. Ohio, 1968], line of sight where officers respond to a commission of a crime or complaint of thereof and said evidence is within plain view, or based on probable cause that a crime is being committed). To bypass provisions that were intentionally placed in direct response to British soldiers and magistrates being able to go into a residence or business freely and search without just cause or provocation to search is no less abbhorant today than it was in 1791, or when SCOTUS reaffirmed the 4th Amendment in Katz v. United States (1967) with the use of payphones and a reasonable expectation of privacy, and again with Riley v. California (2014). And while SCOTUS hasnt weighed in on issues surrounding the net, to quote Chief Justice John Roberts: Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant. So since you support SOPA, my question to you Sir, as a person who is studying criminal justice right now and going into Constitutional Law, why are you so concerned with bypassing the 4th Amendment and the requirement therein to get a warrant? Are you, perhaps, afraid that the warrants wont be given because the reason for the spying lacks adequate probable cause?
Posted on: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 02:29:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015