On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Steve Schear wrote:
Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public.
What has 'public' got to do with 'probable cause'? Amendment IV 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.
After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos.
'permitted' pretty much sinks your whole point.
Despite certain city/county ordinances why not masks or helmets with tinted faceplates. What if exoskeletons become practical? Shouldn't they be treated the same as an auto?
You mean with license plates, and annual inspection? -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------