The end of the Fourth Amendment

[Duncan Frissell]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:

> On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but the
> "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the Fourth
> Amendment that it bears special comment.
>

Unfortunately, the Fourth doesn't ban secret searches it just bans
warrantless ones.  And that ban was destroyed years ago:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/435.html

Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank
records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the
District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
Pp. 440-446.

Since then most of our "papers and effects" have been open to warrantless
searches.

Any good computer mechanics out there who can rig an electro-mechanical
interface for a computer-actuated spring gun.  Double-barreled shotgun
pointed at the keyboard.  Enter the right passphrase within 30 seconds of
starting your session or be splattered across the monitor.

DCF
----
"If you want to accurately foretell the future, predict war.  You'll
always be right." -- Robert Heinlein Worldcon 1976.