Talk:Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[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)
he cannot force you to answer questions about anything else<<< The police can never force you to answer anything ever. Have no idea how to work wiki... but I thought that line was absurd and misleading.
elgog: I see references to HIPPA and the NSA regarding 4th Amendment rights but no references regarding the exceptions in the Banking Secrecy Act (BSA 12 CFR 353.3(a).) nor the Patriot Act. Many of the 4th Amendment rights are ignored with no real judicial review. Additionally, these acts make it illegal to even notify the subject of this disclosure of what, when or why the disclosure was made. The 4th Amendment has essentially been reduced to a fraction of law enforcement activities. The Federal Government has made itself immune from the 4th Amendment. But no documentation is offered here in this article. This is misleading.216.15.74.185 19:44, 24 June 2007 (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 surprise 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.") —Preceding unsigned comment 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 separately 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 myriad exceptions for each action discussed under the appropriate heading. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
[edit] Table of contents
I see no reason to delete the Table of contents, why would someone make it harder to find information in this text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.199.69 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
- I agree completely. It would be one thing if the TOC was extremely long in this article, but it is not. The default TOC should be used. --- RockMFR 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a completely different story than removing it unilaterally, IP user. I happen to disagree. I think it's quite long and we could keep it closed until needed -- Y not? 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't see a reason to change the TOC interface, especially considering that users expect to see a table of contents on a Wikipedia article this long. Aesthetics should never come in the way of usability. --- RockMFR 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a completely different story than removing it unilaterally, IP user. I happen to disagree. I think it's quite long and we could keep it closed until needed -- Y not? 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] vehicle exception.....
with the U.S. Supreme Court decision voiced by Hon. Justice(is that right?)David Souder, Brendlin v. California, is the vehicle exception going to have to change?? Just a thought.NotguiltyNcali 10:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
I was just curious... the first sentence 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.
- This vandalism has been removed.Bryantheis (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
[edit] Is this an Encyclopedia or a Law Review article?
I find this article very difficult to follow (and I have some background in this area). It seems poorly organized for an encyclopedia entry, which ought to focus on matters that would be informative to a member of the general population. For example, it leads off not with what the Amendment is understood to mean or how it was ratified, but practices under English common law (???) in colonial and even pre-colonial times. It also doesn't read like most of the material that appears on Wikipedia. Frankly, to me this reads like a piece from a law review article or law treatise at best, and in particular an older one, and my first reaction when perusing it is that it was "cribbed" from someplace else (although not the CRS analysis, which was my first guess). I am curious to know whether anybody else shares this impression. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Exceptions? What exceptions?
Warrantless searches and seizures are not automatically considered to be unreasonable, unless one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement is applicable.
The above sentence in the article has a normal wiki link to a disambiguation page for the definition of the word "exception". Why? Would anybody be reading this article who doesn't know what the word "exception" meant? This wiki link is absolutely useless. I though it was going to take me to a list of these so-called "well-delineated exceptions".
Thank you. 129.139.1.68 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article revisions
I have consolidated the cite tags from the Colonial America subsection, moved the subsections of the Text section are now subsections of a new Background section, changed the names of two sections (Amendment --> Case law / another Case law section --> Applicability). Converted citations in the section about the Internet and computers into footnotes. I also made other miscellaneous edits.
These edits have made the article clearer and more like other articles about the United States Bill of Rights. The substance of the article was not affected by any of these edits. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have merged the Case law section into the Applicability section. The Case law section was closely related to what is in the Applicability section, so there seemed to be no reason why the two sections needed to be kept separated. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] William Cuddihy Cites?
William Cuddihy's Ph.d. dissertation is quoted several times without citation. Scholarship such as this is precisely why Wikipedia has no credibility.
[edit] New fourth amendment exception
The new paragraph and link to EFF article are mine; I'm fairly new to the realm of legal articles on Wikipedia, so please let me know if I've been *too bold there. Mateo LeFou (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction & citations
Is it proper for the Introduction to have cite tags? Is it necessary for an Introduction to have citations if it's referring to cited material in the body of the article? Here's what Wikipedia says on the matter:
| “ | The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. | ” |
--SMP0328. (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed material
I have removed the following paragraph from the "Case law" section:
| “ | The Fourth Amendment was needed because the writs of assistance had alarmed the colonies, and had inspired citizens to demand their rights. Congress recognized those demands, and so the Fourth Amendment stands today. But does the word "unreasonable" mean unreasonable according to the people of 1789, or according to people today, or according to judges, or according to juries? This question has not been definitively answered. However, to the extent that the Fourth Amendment is used for purposes of striking down statutes, the framers expected that the standard of review would be clear and irreconcilable variance with the Fourth Amendment. | ” |
The first couple of sentences repeat what's already stated in the Introduction. The third sentence simply asks a question. The fourth sentence answers that question incorrectly (throughout the article is the standard of review mentioned). The last sentence is completely unsupported. The removed material was unsourced, included a redundancy and a factual inaccuracy. Therefore, it has been removed from the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I see it, all the statements except the last are acceptable. "This question has not been definitely answered" is merely an acknowledgement that grey areas still exist. The last statement, about the intent of the framers, seems to be POV, unless you can cite it; even then, maybe it might still be POV. Ultimately, however, I have no objection to the removal of redundancy.
- 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copy editing
I have been asked why I put the {{copyedit}} tag on here. My answers have been copied and refactored from my talk page:
I approached the article with the goal of promoting it to WP:GAN but changed my mind because basically I felt that the section on British history was not well-written. There were what I thought were some mistakes, which I fixed, but then I stopped because I am not even slightly familiar with this aspect of the subject.
[edit] British and colonial law
Here are some examples of things that I would want fixed before we send this to WP:GAN. The sentence "This was a milestone in history, as it brought into light that the Magna Carta was not just something to be specific in naming persons sought and/or the places to be searched" may be grammatically correct, but is unclear in its meaning (unless one refers to the Magna Carta itself). Also, the section says that "Hale was an early visionary regarding the concept of 'probable cause'" but usually one uses a last name by itself only when one has fully introduced the individual earlier in the article.
The statement "The concept of facing a civil suit for false arrest is a far cry to many current provisions that offer officers protection such as the 'In good faith' ideal" is also not particularly well-written. In the following section, "Until the 1760's, Cuddihy remarked that a 'man's house was even less of a legal castle in America than in England' because when adopting British models the exceptions they had were ignored" can be improved in that we ought to specify who ignored the exceptions when adopting British models, and also why ignoring the exceptions is the cause of one's house being less of a castle than in England. (If the rule is that one's "house is a castle," then ignoring the exceptions to the rule should make the house "more" of a "castle.")
[edit] Modern law
Further down in the article, there are two subsections on Terry stops – one under Searches and one under Seizures. Please merge them. (I can do it, but I might not get around to doing so for a while.)
All in all, I think that the text makes a good effort to be balanced but is not quite up to good article standards of writing yet. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wow, that was quick!! 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Expand definitions of search and seizure?
The definitions of Search and Seizure in this entry need to be expanded beyond the obvious. The example I'm thinking of is when property used as work tools (e.g. computers and cameras) is seized for "Investigatory" reasons. As both computers can have data copied off them, and cameras can have films/data cards removed, it is entirely possible that the police can get the evidence they need without taking the work tools from the suspect. To not do this, and thus directly impact an individual's right to freely work and make money, seems unreasonable. Has there been cases along this lines that we can quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
