| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporaryinterpretation
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:13:30 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables. peace and justice, peaking of 911... How can you be such a damned traitor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Shatzer wrote: And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the economic injury incurred from that event. It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer another 9-11 every six or seven years. Peace and justice, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
The Republican Party is run by Mad Men.
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:58:09 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
nutter! peace and justice, peaking of 911... How can you be such a damned traitor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Shatzer wrote: And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the economic injury incurred from that event. It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer another 9-11 every six or seven years. Peace and justice, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporaryinterpretation
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:49:19 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
What guidance does "original meaning" provide there? peaking of 911... How can you be such a damned traitor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Shatzer wrote: And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the economic injury incurred from that event. It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer another 9-11 every six or seven years. Peace and justice, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporaryinterpretation
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:17:33 -0700, dave wrote:
There is no way to tell what people were really thinking in 1787. Um...we could try READING what they wrote.... |
Thomas Paine was the clearest advocate for Liberty of severalkinds
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:37:33 -0700, dave wrote:
This is my Bible: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm Got something against the REAL thing? |
The American Public "The Voters" Are Trending To Voting "NO"on an Obama Second Term in 2012
On 4/22/2011 11:24 PM, RHF wrote:
... Conclusion : Natural American Born - or- Native Kenya Born Does Not Matter Now -cause- The American Public "The Voters" Are Trending To Voting "NO" on an Obama Second Term in 2012 . and that is the way 'i' see it ~ RHF . . NEVER underestimate the stupidity, ignorance and moronic capabilities of the American brain dead. We put the tootsie roll stabbing, twinkle toed, jerry brown back in the office of governor ... last time he was in he almost bankrupted and ruined California. Since he was unable to effect complete destruction, heeeees bbaaaaacccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkk! Just doing damage control and completing the actions which arnie failed at ... Regards, JS |
The American Public "The Voters" Are Trending To Voting "NO"on an Obama Second Term in 2012
On 4/23/2011 9:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 4/22/2011 11:24 PM, RHF wrote: ... Conclusion : Natural American Born - or- Native Kenya Born Does Not Matter Now -cause- The American Public "The Voters" Are Trending To Voting "NO" on an Obama Second Term in 2012 . and that is the way 'i' see it ~ RHF . . NEVER underestimate the stupidity, ignorance and moronic capabilities of the American brain dead. As an example, look at the birther cult. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On Apr 21, 4:13*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
English common law at the time would define the term since that is what they were basing it on. And just what did the English common law have to say about infrared cameras and telephone taps? If a camera can really look through walls then police use constitutes a search which must meet the same requirements as if they cop goes into the house. In addition the forth amendment clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause. We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables. I would like to see a number put on that. At least 75% probable that there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. Of course that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On 04/24/2011 01:34 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:
It's been at least a decade, maybe two, since cops have even needed a warrant to search your property. It's been "legal" for them to barge in and get a warrant after the fact (they're SUPPOSED to have to show cause why they performed the search, but if a cop tells a judge he reasonably believed a crime was being committed, chances are good that he'll get his post-search warrant...) And, of course, they don't even need a warrant at all to search your vehicle, they can do that on a whim at any traffic stop. They cannot search your vehicle if you don't give them permission unless they arrest you. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On Apr 24, 1:22*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
If a camera can really look through walls then police use constitutes a search which must meet the same requirements as if they cop goes into the house. The English common law said THAT? Nor does it say that cops can't have someone sneak a bug into someone's home without a warrant. It simply says (if I understand correctly) that you need a warrant to search private homes etc. That is any search, be it by physical entry or infrared. The question is if it is a search and if so is there probably cause. In addition the forth amendment clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause. We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables.. I would like to see a number put on that. *At least 75% probable that there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. *Of course that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges. Just how would you presume to place a number on THAT. What constitutes "75%" or whatever probability? However would you compute that? That's the sort of thing I can have lots of fun with. You do things like determining witness reliability, or the probability that the tire tracks at the scene. Most likely you will have to calculate joint probabilities.* Not that difficult to do if you have a bit of statistical knowledge. *For example, tracks show about a size 10 shoe. There are probably Y people in the area with that shoe size. The right shoe has unusual wear on the outer side of the toe. The thief stepped in mud and probably weighed about 200 pounds. Thief was able to reach the entry window without putting any box or ladder in the soft dirt underneath which means he must be six feet or more tall. Calculate the joint probability of all those. Then combine that with things like witness reports, what a pawn shop owner might remember or have records of from the stuff being pawned and you can get some pretty good numbers. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On Apr 24, 7:48*pm, hal lillywhite wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:22*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote: If a camera can really look through walls then police use constitutes a search which must meet the same requirements as if they cop goes into the house. The English common law said THAT? Nor does it say that cops can't have someone sneak a bug into someone's home without a warrant. *It simply says (if I understand correctly) that you need a warrant to search private homes etc. *That is any search, be it by physical entry or infrared. *The question is if it is a search and if so is there probably cause. In addition the forth amendment clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause. We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables. I would like to see a number put on that. *At least 75% probable that there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. *Of course that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges. Just how would you presume to place a number on THAT. What constitutes "75%" or whatever probability? However would you compute that? That's the sort of thing I can have lots of fun with. *You do things like determining witness reliability, or the probability that the tire tracks at the scene. *Most likely you will have to calculate joint probabilities.* *Not that difficult to do if you have a bit of statistical knowledge. *For example, tracks show about a size 10 shoe. *There are probably Y people in the area with that shoe size. *The right shoe has unusual wear on the outer side of the toe. *The thief stepped in mud and probably weighed about 200 pounds. *Thief was able to reach the entry window without putting any box or ladder in the soft dirt underneath which means he must be six feet or more tall. *Calculate the joint probability of all those. *Then combine that with things like witness reports, what a pawn shop owner might remember or have records of from the stuff being pawned and you can get some pretty good numbers. This Weeks Theme {Message} Is . . . "The Cult of the Obama" Just Say Hell "NO" To Candidate Obama in 2012 ! 50 Legal Ways To STOP an Obama Second Term in 2012 and End 'The Cult of Obama' http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...dd53e471fbb674 |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporaryinterpretation
Phoney Fraud FakeAss 'Birth Certificates' are a Dime a Dozen
nowadays.Just go to Hawaii and you can get all you want. cuhulin |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
dave wrote:
On 04/24/2011 01:34 PM, Brenda Ann wrote: It's been at least a decade, maybe two, since cops have even needed a warrant to search your property. It's been "legal" for them to barge in and get a warrant after the fact (they're SUPPOSED to have to show cause why they performed the search, but if a cop tells a judge he reasonably believed a crime was being committed, chances are good that he'll get his post-search warrant...) And, of course, they don't even need a warrant at all to search your vehicle, they can do that on a whim at any traffic stop. They cannot search your vehicle if you don't give them permission unless they arrest you. That's incorrect. peace and justice, |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
hal lillywhite wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:22 pm, Bill Shatzer wrote: If a camera can really look through walls then police use constitutes a search which must meet the same requirements as if they cop goes into the house. The English common law said THAT? Nor does it say that cops can't have someone sneak a bug into someone's home without a warrant. Thus the need to advance the definition of "unreasonable searches and seizures" beyond the confines of the English common law in 1791. It simply says (if I understand correctly) that you need a warrant to search private homes etc. You understand incorrectly. The constitution merely speaks to *unreasonable* searches and seizures. Searches and seizures with a probable cause warrant a presumed reasonable but they are not the only ones which are. That is any search, be it by physical entry or infrared. The question is if it is a search and if so is there probably cause. Two excellent questions - neither of which is addressed by the 1791 English common law. In addition the forth amendment clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause. We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables. I would like to see a number put on that. At least 75% probable that there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. Of course that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges. Just how would you presume to place a number on THAT. What constitutes "75%" or whatever probability? However would you compute that? That's the sort of thing I can have lots of fun with. But not in any real world situations. You do things like determining witness reliability, or the probability that the tire tracks at the scene. Most likely you will have to calculate joint probabilities.* Not that difficult to do if you have a bit of statistical knowledge. That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world. And probable cause operates on the basis of such individuals, who are, in almost all instances, NOT statisticians. peace and justice, |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporaryinterpretation
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:14:00 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world. Speaking of 911... How can you be such a damned traitor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Shatzer wrote: And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the economic injury incurred from that event. It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer another 9-11 every six or seven years. Peace and justice, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporaryinterpretation
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:45:07 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
That's incorrect. peace and justice, Speaking of 911... How can you be such a damned traitor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Shatzer wrote: And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the economic injury incurred from that event. It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer another 9-11 every six or seven years. Peace and justice, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
The English common law said THAT? Nor does it say that cops can't have someone sneak a bug into someone's home without a warrant. Thus the need to advance the definition of "unreasonable searches and seizures" beyond the confines of the English common law in 1791. I disagree. If it's unreasonable for a cop to enter your home without permission, it's equally unreasonable to plant a bug or use infrared without permission. However should change be required, the way to do it is with a law or amendment, not judge-made law. (And it would be pretty easy to defeat infrared searches, a bit of metal over the walls and it doesn't get out of the house. A few rolls of aluminum foil would do it, as would metal-backed insulation in the walls and ceiling.) It simply says (if I understand correctly) that you need a warrant to search private homes etc. * You understand incorrectly. The constitution merely speaks to *unreasonable* searches and seizures. Searches and seizures with a probable cause warrant a presumed reasonable but they are not the only ones which are. But still, there is no reason to believe that modern technology changes the definition of unreasonable. The methods, yes, but not the definition. That is any search, be it by physical entry or infrared. *The question is if it is a search and if so is there probably cause. Two excellent questions - neither of which is addressed by the 1791 English common law. The term "search" is pretty well understood, now as it was in 1791. Nor has the definition of "probable" changed. In addition the forth amendment clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause. We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables. I would like to see a number put on that. *At least 75% probable that there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. *Of course that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges. Just how would you presume to place a number on THAT. What constitutes "75%" or whatever probability? However would you compute that? That's the sort of thing I can have lots of fun with. But not in any real world situations. Why can't a lawyer ask, "Officer, you say you had probable cause to search my client's house. Just how probable was it that you would find evidence there and how did you determine that probability?" You do things like determining witness reliability, or the probability that the tire tracks at the scene. *Most likely you will have to calculate joint probabilities.* *Not that difficult to do if you have a bit of statistical knowledge. That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world. A court of law is hardly reflective of most of the world. And probable cause operates on the basis of such individuals, who are, in almost all instances, NOT statisticians. You don't have to be a statistician to understand the basic concepts required for such calculations. In fact modern technology could help here. It would be simple to produce a computer program to calculate everything they need, you'd only have to help them understand the concepts. For most people of average intelligence, a few hours (maybe 4-8) of class time would be more than adequate. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
hal lillywhite wrote:
The English common law said THAT? Nor does it say that cops can't have someone sneak a bug into someone's home without a warrant. Thus the need to advance the definition of "unreasonable searches and seizures" beyond the confines of the English common law in 1791. I disagree. If it's unreasonable for a cop to enter your home without permission, it's equally unreasonable to plant a bug or use infrared without permission. But, you see, the entry itself is neither a search nor a seizure. It's the bug which is the search or search. The infrared camera is not an entry at all - it is merely recording the emissions coming from the dwelling in any case. However should change be required, the way to do it is with a law or amendment, not judge-made law. The "law" in this case is merely a prohibition against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Judges must determine whether or not they are reasonable in specific cases - after all, you claim this all originates in "English common law" and what is common law beyond a series of judge made rulings and determinations? (And it would be pretty easy to defeat infrared searches, a bit of metal over the walls and it doesn't get out of the house. A few rolls of aluminum foil would do it, as would metal-backed insulation in the walls and ceiling.) I wonder. It simply says (if I understand correctly) that you need a warrant to search private homes etc. You understand incorrectly. The constitution merely speaks to *unreasonable* searches and seizures. Searches and seizures with a probable cause warrant a presumed reasonable but they are not the only ones which are. But still, there is no reason to believe that modern technology changes the definition of unreasonable. The methods, yes, but not the definition. Under the English common law, the constable was allowed to stand out side the dwelling and if he saw (or heard) evidence of a crime through a window, take appropriate action. Judges must decide whether doing the same thing with the benefit of an infrared detector or a sound amplifier is more akin to the constable standing outside or more akin to an actual entry. The judges have come down on a "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard but that is by no means implicit in 1791 common law. That is any search, be it by physical entry or infrared. The question is if it is a search and if so is there probably cause. Two excellent questions - neither of which is addressed by the 1791 English common law. The term "search" is pretty well understood, now as it was in 1791. Nor has the definition of "probable" changed. I'd dispute both assertions. In addition the forth amendment clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause. We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables. I would like to see a number put on that. At least 75% probable that there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. Of course that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges. Just how would you presume to place a number on THAT. What constitutes "75%" or whatever probability? However would you compute that? That's the sort of thing I can have lots of fun with. But not in any real world situations. Why can't a lawyer ask, "Officer, you say you had probable cause to search my client's house. Just how probable was it that you would find evidence there and how did you determine that probability?" The question wouldn't even be allowed. Note in any case that probable cause relates to the issuance of warrants and not to searches themselves which must only be not "unreasonable". A search pursuant to duly issued warrant is prima facie reasonable but all searches without a warrant are not necessarily unreasonable. You do things like determining witness reliability, or the probability that the tire tracks at the scene. Most likely you will have to calculate joint probabilities.* Not that difficult to do if you have a bit of statistical knowledge. That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world. A court of law is hardly reflective of most of the world. The courts of law ABOUND in "reasonable man" standards! And probable cause operates on the basis of such individuals, who are, in almost all instances, NOT statisticians. You don't have to be a statistician to understand the basic concepts required for such calculations. In fact modern technology could help here. It would be simple to produce a computer program to calculate everything they need, you'd only have to help them understand the concepts. For most people of average intelligence, a few hours (maybe 4-8) of class time would be more than adequate. I fear you rather underestimate the complexity of what you're proposing. Each case is unique with it's own particular facts and circumstances and is unlikely to fit into any preconceived computer calculation. peace and justice, |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporaryinterpretation
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:06:28 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
The "law" in this case is merely a prohibition Speaking of 911... How can you be such a damned traitor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Shatzer wrote: And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the economic injury incurred from that event. It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer another 9-11 every six or seven years. Peace and justice, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On 4/24/2011 2:59 PM, Jarbidge has always been:
such a damned traitor You are dominated by the amygdala. Your anterior cingulate cortex is shriveled and non-functional. Is there something about intelligent, mature debate that you simply can't grasp? Do you ever have anything of interest, or substance, to say? You are a little dick bitch who feels like it is his civic duty as a Usenet troll to place his nose firmly in the sphincters of those he dislikes every time they post. They all own you, spammy. '**** happens' ---Traitorous 'Spammy' Ed's reply to the fact that 34 Americans died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS Liberty. Spammy is a gutless coward who has never served his country in uniform. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On 4/24/2011 11:37 PM, Jarbidge will always be:
a damned traitor You are dominated by the amygdala. Your anterior cingulate cortex is shriveled and non-functional. Is there something about intelligent, mature debate that you simply can't grasp? Do you ever have anything of interest, or substance, to say? You are a little dick bitch who feels like it is his civic duty as a Usenet troll to place his nose firmly in the sphincters of those he dislikes every time they post. They all own you, spammy. '**** happens' ---Traitorous 'Spammy' Ed's reply to the fact that 34 Americans died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS Liberty. Spammy is a gutless coward who has never served his country in uniform. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On Apr 25, 2:06*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
But, you see, the entry itself is neither a search nor a seizure. But entering in search of evidence is. If the cop ain't looking for evidence, why does he need to enter? It's the bug which is the search or search. The infrared camera is not an entry at all - it is merely recording the emissions coming from the dwelling in any case. But clearly is seeking evidence if that is how they use it. .... (And it would be pretty easy to defeat infrared searches, a bit of metal over the walls and it doesn't get out of the house. *A few rolls of aluminum foil would do it, as would metal-backed insulation in the walls and ceiling.) I wonder. No need to wonder, talk to any physicist and he'll tell you that metal blocks IR. That's how a space blanket works. In fact Columbia Sportswear recently came out with clothing with aluminum dots to reflect the IR the body generates and thus increase insulation value. .... Under the English common law, the constable was allowed to stand out side the dwelling and if he saw (or heard) evidence of a crime through a window, take appropriate action. Judges must decide whether doing the same thing with the benefit of an infrared detector or a sound amplifier is more akin to the constable standing outside or more akin to an actual entry. There is a difference between looking through an un-curtained window and looking through walls that people have every reason to expect are opaque. .... Why can't a lawyer ask, "Officer, you say you had probable cause to search my client's house. *Just how probable was it that you would find evidence there and how did you determine that probability?" The question wouldn't even be allowed. Why? If evidence was obtained by that claim of probability, why should the defense not be allowed to ask about it? .... That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world. A court of law is hardly reflective of most of the world. The courts of law ABOUND in "reasonable man" standards! And that would exclude probability? And probable cause operates on the basis of such individuals, who are, in almost all instances, NOT statisticians. You don't have to be a statistician to understand the basic concepts required for such calculations. *In fact modern technology could help here. *It would be simple to produce a computer program to calculate everything they need, you'd only have to help them understand the concepts. *For most people of average intelligence, a few hours (maybe 4-8) of class time would be more than adequate. I fear you rather underestimate the complexity of what you're proposing. Each case is unique with it's own particular facts and circumstances and is unlikely to fit into any preconceived computer calculation. You make it unnecessarily complicated. All you need is some basic understanding of probability and the ability to multiply, divide, add and subtract. Wouldn't even get into square roots except in extraordinary cases. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On 4/25/2011 5:24 PM, Jarbidge wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:06:28 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote: The "law" in this case is merely a prohibition Speaking of 911... How can you be such a damned traitor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Shatzer wrote: And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the economic injury incurred from that event. It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer another 9-11 every six or seven years. Peace and justice, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Well, with life that cheap, we should be able to murder him and any of his living relatives and have it of such low an importance as to not even be worth mentioning! If my minor complaints would stand in anyones' way, perhaps they would be best ignored? Regards, JS |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
hal lillywhite wrote:
On Apr 25, 2:06 pm, Bill Shatzer wrote: But, you see, the entry itself is neither a search nor a seizure. But entering in search of evidence is. If the cop ain't looking for evidence, why does he need to enter? It's the bug which is the search or seizure. Still, it's searches and seizures which the constitution addresses. The infrared camera is not an entry at all - it is merely recording the emissions coming from the dwelling in any case. But clearly is seeking evidence if that is how they use it. They're seeking evidence when they peer through a hole in the fence and spot a marijuana grow in the back yard. (And it would be pretty easy to defeat infrared searches, a bit of metal over the walls and it doesn't get out of the house. A few rolls of aluminum foil would do it, as would metal-backed insulation in the walls and ceiling.) I wonder. No need to wonder, talk to any physicist and he'll tell you that metal blocks IR. That's how a space blanket works. In fact Columbia Sportswear recently came out with clothing with aluminum dots to reflect the IR the body generates and thus increase insulation value. What I wondered about was whether a dwelling which emitted no IR at all would constitute probable cause in its own right. With or without records of purchases of large amounts of Reynolds Wrap. Under the English common law, the constable was allowed to stand out side the dwelling and if he saw (or heard) evidence of a crime through a window, take appropriate action. Judges must decide whether doing the same thing with the benefit of an infrared detector or a sound amplifier is more akin to the constable standing outside or more akin to an actual entry. There is a difference between looking through an un-curtained window and looking through walls that people have every reason to expect are opaque. Of course there's a difference. Which is rather why the judges came up with the concept of "reasonable expectations of privacy" - a concept nowhere mentioned in the 4th amendment nor the 1791 common law. The language of the 4th is not self-defining. Judges must do that. Why can't a lawyer ask, "Officer, you say you had probable cause to search my client's house. Just how probable was it that you would find evidence there and how did you determine that probability?" The question wouldn't even be allowed. Why? If evidence was obtained by that claim of probability, why should the defense not be allowed to ask about it? Because probability is not the standard, probable cause is. That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world. A court of law is hardly reflective of most of the world. The courts of law ABOUND in "reasonable man" standards! And that would exclude probability? Pretty much. It's "probable" that the defendant was speeding - after all, if you clocked 100 vehicles, 80 of them would be exceeding the speed limit by some amount. But that is not an allowable inference, even though it's probably correct. And probable cause operates on the basis of such individuals, who are, in almost all instances, NOT statisticians. You don't have to be a statistician to understand the basic concepts required for such calculations. In fact modern technology could help here. It would be simple to produce a computer program to calculate everything they need, you'd only have to help them understand the concepts. For most people of average intelligence, a few hours (maybe 4-8) of class time would be more than adequate. I fear you rather underestimate the complexity of what you're proposing. Each case is unique with it's own particular facts and circumstances and is unlikely to fit into any preconceived computer calculation. You make it unnecessarily complicated. All you need is some basic understanding of probability and the ability to multiply, divide, add and subtract. Wouldn't even get into square roots except in extraordinary cases. The difficulty is in assigning a numerical value to such things to even begin the statistical calculation. A cop observes two men. One hands the other a small package. The other returns an envelope. What is the probability that the cop has just witnessed a drug sale? Does it make a difference as to whether the cop was on the corner of Couch and 4th as opposed to the dining room of the Glendoveer Country Club? Did the cop observe furtive glances prior to the exchange? What exactly is a furtive glance? Does the time of day make a difference? What if the cop recognizes one of the men as a convicted drug user? Or as the Mayor? I'm sure you can come up with at least a half dozen other possible variables. Plug in the appropriate values and crank up your computer. GIGO. peace and justice, |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
On Apr 25, 10:33*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
hal lillywhite wrote: It's the bug which is the search or seizure. Still, it's searches and seizures which the constitution addresses. Agreed and it is rather clear when a cop is searching or seizing. The infrared camera is not an entry at all - it is merely recording the emissions coming from the dwelling in any case. But clearly is seeking evidence if that is how they use it. They're seeking evidence when they peer through a hole in the fence and spot a marijuana grow in the back yard. But there's rather more expectation of privacy inside a house than in a yard. (And it would be pretty easy to defeat infrared searches, a bit of metal over the walls and it doesn't get out of the house. *A few rolls of aluminum foil would do it, as would metal-backed insulation in the walls and ceiling.) I wonder. No need to wonder, talk to any physicist and he'll tell you that metal blocks IR. *That's how a space blanket works. *In fact Columbia Sportswear recently came out with clothing with aluminum dots to reflect the IR the body generates and thus increase insulation value. What I wondered about was whether a dwelling which emitted no IR at all would constitute probable cause in its own right. With or without records of purchases of large amounts of Reynolds Wrap. The building is gonna emit IR but with the metal blocking that IR will be very diffuse and not show images, hence not useful for evidence. However metal-backed insulation is available so there's no reason not to think that wasn't used in the house. As for large quantities of Reynolds Wrap, just looked at our roll which contained 200 square feet. It would only take a few of those to block off the walls toward the street, not enough to arouse suspicion at the grocery store. And why would it be suspicious for someone to block the IR from their home? As IR imagers become more available I can see that someone would want to make sure that local peeping Tom couldn't watch them on the toilet or while making love. .... There is a difference between looking through an un-curtained window and looking through walls that people have every reason to expect are opaque. Of course there's a difference. Which is rather why the judges came up with the concept of "reasonable expectations of privacy" - a concept nowhere mentioned in the 4th amendment nor the 1791 common law. But "probable cause" implies that it must be reasonable. The language of the 4th is not self-defining. Judges must do that. Why can't a lawyer ask, "Officer, you say you had probable cause to search my client's house. *Just how probable was it that you would find evidence there and how did you determine that probability?" The question wouldn't even be allowed. Why? *If evidence was obtained by that claim of probability, why should the defense not be allowed to ask about it? Because probability is not the standard, probable cause is. How do you define probable? How do you know it is probable? What you've described is an invitation to chaos with one judge accepting most anything as probable cause while another has high standards. If we put some standards on it then at least the cop would have an idea of what he needs to demonstrate to get a warrant. That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world. A court of law is hardly reflective of most of the world. The courts of law ABOUND in "reasonable man" standards! And that would exclude probability? Pretty much. It's "probable" that the defendant was speeding - after all, if you clocked 100 vehicles, 80 of them would be exceeding the speed limit by some amount. But that is not an allowable inference, even though it's probably correct.. But it is, I believe, allowable as reason to gather more evidence such as put a cop with a radar gun on that highway. You can't convict on 80% probability but you can get more evidence, raise the probability to near 100% and then convict. .... The difficulty is in assigning a numerical value to such things to even begin the statistical calculation. A cop observes two men. One hands the other a small package. The other returns an envelope. What is the probability that the cop has just witnessed a drug sale? Does it make a difference as to whether the cop was on the corner of Couch and 4th as opposed to the dining room of the Glendoveer Country Club? Did the cop observe furtive glances prior to the exchange? What exactly is a furtive glance? Does the time of day make a difference? What if the cop recognizes one of the men as a convicted drug user? Or as the Mayor? *I'm sure you can come up with at least a half dozen other possible variables. Statistics can *easily* include all those factors, even the cop's experience and how it affects his right brain recognition. Plug in the appropriate values and crank up your computer. GIGO. And there's no GIGO in the current system? No cops or judges with biases? However if probability is correctly applied it will eliminate GIGO. Any statistician will tell you that you have to have good data for the statistics to be meaningful. How often are drug deals known to happen at Couch and 4th? What's the recidivism rate of drug dealers? Is the guy handing the mayor an envelope going to benefit if he bribes that mayor? Probability calculation can handle all that quite easily if given the correct data. However without that correct data *nobody* is likely to be very accurate. |
Constitution is vague and subject to contemporary interpretation
hal lillywhite wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:33 pm, Bill Shatzer wrote: hal lillywhite wrote: It's the bug which is the search or seizure. Still, it's searches and seizures which the constitution addresses. Agreed and it is rather clear when a cop is searching or seizing. The infrared camera is not an entry at all - it is merely recording the emissions coming from the dwelling in any case. But clearly is seeking evidence if that is how they use it. They're seeking evidence when they peer through a hole in the fence and spot a marijuana grow in the back yard. But there's rather more expectation of privacy inside a house than in a yard. And thus JUDGES have come up with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" criterion - a standard which does not appear in the 4th amendment nor in the 1791 English common law. peace and justice, |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com