Talk:Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I was just curious... the first sentance of the summary says "The fourth amendment is retarted and it can be broken into two distinct parts." Is retarted a word? I can't find it in any of my dictionaries.


One of the major tests, particularly with detentions covered by the fourth amendment, is "reasonable suspicion." The "reasonableness" in the article might be covering this and more, I'm not sure. But if it's not, we could change it to the technical term.

Contents

[edit] Conditions of Searches

Removed the following from the Conditions of Searches section:

Under HIPAA, no notification is required at all, and doctors are required by law to not inform their patients if the government has searched their records.

I can't locate any such requirement in HIPAA. Please provide a reference.--Kbk 17:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence needs citation badly

I believe that this sentence is desperately in need of a citation:

"Similarly, there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials (although Congress has placed statutory restrictions on such monitoring)."

...especially in light of recent events in the United States of America. Does anyone else agree? --Takeel 21:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence does need a citation, if it engenders such disbelief. But do not despair that it is the law! Also, this sentence has the appropriate citation.---Axios023 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article has a long "alternative view" section at the end, added by Jb2ndr (talk • contribs), that states things "in the opinion of the author". First: What author? Second: Wikipedia articles are not platforms for their authors' opinions. Unless Jb2ndr's edits can be sourced and neutralized, they should be removed. Uncle G 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Since there has been no comment in four days, and no sources cited, I've gone ahead and zapped the entire thing, restoring the article to how it was. Please cite sources for the view if you wish to re-add it. Uncle G 11:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Analysis

Uncle G.

My responses to your citation request is contained in Wikipedia:New proposal for alternative analysis. I would greatly appreciate your comments on this proposal. But the movement in WP by self-appointed NPOV and POV editors must have some limit if we are not to become a source of regurgitation for unchallenged expert opinion.

If the addition is not analysis by rules of logic then Please contain your objections to that.

JB2ndr

  • The alternative analysis section is very poorly written and POV. In general, phrases like "in the author's opinion" should be a burning, waving red flag. --Improv 13:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That section was completely invalid and inaccurate; it was a good move to delete it entirely. Postdlf 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Hayden, former head NSA

Might this be applicable (and timely!) for external links or similar?

Michael Hayden: "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM

("In this disturbing exchange we see former head of the NSA, General Michael Hayden, argue with reporter Jonathan Landay that the words "probable cause" are not found in the Fourth Amendment. I don't want to spoil the suprise for you, but "probable cause" is the measure for issuing a warrant in the Fourth Amendment. Of course, I would find this exceptionally humorous had not Bush recently appointed this man to be the new head of the CIA.") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.190.31 (talk • contribs).

[edit] recent changes

I recently made several changes to the Fourth Amendment article because it was (and still is) poorly organized and often simply inaccurate. I've restructured it so that the common law regarding constitutionally offensive "searches" can be discussed seperately from "seizures." I suggest that following the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" section, someone should create a consolidated section discussing how the Court has defined "seizure."

Additionally, there is no doubt that subsequent sections need to be titled "Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement for Searches," and "Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement for Seizures," with the myraid exceptions for each action discussed under the appropriate heading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. schmitty (talk • contribs).

I am working on a major edit for this page. I am relatively new to Wikipedia (or at least new to actively involving myself), so I apologize in advance for the breaches of etiquette I am sure to make. Mr. schmitty 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] major edit

I recently did a comprehensive edit of this entire entry. I believe I made a lot of logical improvements in the structure of the article and added a lot of valuable content. However, there is no doubt that there is a great deal more that can be done to improve this entry, especially by adding to the exceptions to the warrant requirement sections. Also, an explanation re: the fact that warrants are generally not required for arrests is badly needed in the "Warrant Requirement" section.Mr. schmitty 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/u/Talk%7EFourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution_29bc.html"