Tombstone Taps: 5th Cir

[Jim Choate]

                                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.

The above places NO burden of proof or action on the acused. It also
places no exemptions on what may be searched once probable cause is
demonstrated. It further places no limits on searches based on the
intended targets desires or state of mind. The issue of 'private' or
'public' is specious with respect to legaly executed searches.

The 1st doesn't say that 'speech' or 'press' can't be searched.


On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:

> "The dispositive issue in Kee and Routier's complaint is whether the secret
> electronic recording of their private prayers and conversations directed at
> their deceased relatives violated their reasonable expectation of privacy."
> 
> http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10555-cv0.htm
> 
> "In their affidavits, Kee and Routier assert that their "grieving
> conversations and statements" and "oral prayers and communications to
> ourselves and our God" should be private and not subject to government
> wiretaps. These statements, alone, cannot sustain the weight of Kee and
> Routier's burden in establishing that they had a subjective expectation of
> privacy."
> 
> .....
> Opinion hinges on: "The Failure to Demonstrate Sufficient Facts to Establish
> a Subjective Expectation of Privacy"
> .....
> 
> "Perhaps most damaging to Kee and Routier's argument is that they failed to
> present evidence demonstrating any affirmative steps taken to preserve their
> privacy. While it is apparent from their affidavits that they did not expect
> government agents surreptitiously to be recording their prayers, they also
> were aware that the service was being conducted in an outdoor setting. Kee
> and Routier fail to allege that they took any steps to ensure that unwanted
> individuals were excluded or that they did anything to preserve the private
> nature of the service. They point to no reasonable safeguards or
> common-sense precautions taken to preserve their expectation of privacy."
> 
> ~Aimee
> 
> (The dead don't talk, but they do listen. I'm envisioning Mafia funerals
> with TSCM checkpoints. "YOU ARE BEING RECORDED" epitaphs.)
> 

    ____________________________________________________________________

         If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution
         not the final precedence since it's the primary authority?

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------