Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections4th Amendment
IN THE NEWS

4th Amendment

OPINION
June 9, 2013
Re "Feds tracking all U.S. calls," June 7 In her defense of the government's collection of data from nearly every phone call in the U.S., Senate Intelligence Committee head Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, "It's called protecting America. " I have always believed that the foremost duty of elected officials is to support and defend the Constitution. In this instance, the rights that need protection are guaranteed by the 4th Amendment: "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.
Advertisement
OPINION
January 26, 2014 | By Bruce Ackerman
President Obama's recent speech on government surveillance is dominating the conversation, but he won't be making the key decisions on the future of the National Security Agency's collection of domestic phone data. The statutory provision authorizing these massive sweeps expires June 1, 2015. If Congress simply does nothing, the NSA's domestic spying program will soon come to a screeching halt. The question is whether Americans will seize this opportunity to gain critical perspective on the crisis responses of the George W. Bush years.
OPINION
April 9, 2009 | Lawrence Rosenthal, Lawrence Rosenthal is a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in Orange.
John Yoo is a professor of law at UC Berkeley. This semester, he is my colleague -- as a visiting professor -- at Chapman University's School of Law. Yoo is also under investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general for his role in producing a number of controversial memorandums during his service in the department during the Bush administration. The memos include one stating that the president may authorize the torture of suspected terrorists. I am a former federal prosecutor.
OPINION
May 21, 2006
Re "Forget privacy: We need to spy more," Opinion, May 17 Fair enough; Let's start with Max Boot. In his next column, Boot should publish his home address, phone number, private e-mail address, Social Security number, driver's license number and some of his credit card numbers. My guess is that he won't do it. It's easy to say we need more spying until you realize that they're getting information on you and that information can be used or sold to your detriment. As a proud American, I will not support the abandonment of the 4th Amendment, but if Boot wants to, why doesn't he start by publishing his private information?
OPINION
November 17, 2009
A man's home may be his castle, but few of us -- even celebrities -- have moats these days to protect our privacy. That was true long before the "bling ring" allegedly used the Internet to case the cribs of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. Nor did thieves have to wait for the invention of Google maps to reconnoiter neighborhoods in search of easily accessible homes. That's worth remembering if, as we fear, some legislator decides that a law should be passed to prevent Internet surfers from looking at houses they easily could scope out from the sidewalk.
OPINION
May 14, 2002
Regarding "Ashcroft's Gunslinger Style," editorial, May 10: What an outrage! Our U.S. Department of Justice actually has the gall to argue that the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" means that the people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms! What will these wild-eyed gunslingers think of next? Maybe they'll completely flip out and decide that "the people" also have a 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress, a 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and 9th and 10th Amendment rights to retain any other rights and powers not enumerated in the Constitution.
NATIONAL
April 2, 2012 | By David Savage
The Supreme Court refused Monday to limit strip searches of new jail inmates, even those arrested for minor traffic offenses. Dividing 5-4 along ideological lines, the high court said jail guards needed the full authority to closely search everyone who is entering a jail in order to maintain safety and security. It would be “unworkable,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, to make an exception for persons who are arrested for minor offenses. County jails often must process hundreds of new inmates a day, he said.
OPINION
December 30, 2012
If a law enforcement agency wants to examine your snail mail or the contents of your computer hard drive, it must obtain a search warrant, which means it must convince a judge that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. But no warrant is required to obtain email or documents you have stored in a computer "cloud" so long as they are 180 days old. That would have changed under legislation recently approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee at the behest of its chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 29, 2001 | NORAH VINCENT, Norah Vincent is a freelance journalist who lives in New York City
Ours is a country in which you are ill-advised to be a fetus. The highest court in the land has ruled that you're a parasite, disposable at will, even when you're almost out of the chute. You're just an extension of your mother's whim. She can do whatever she likes with you. Her court-instituted right to "choose" trumps your right to live. Now, taking a new leap, the courts have decided that her right to privacy trumps your right to a clean bill of health.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|