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.
No person shall be susceptible to any unwarranted or unreasonable searches nor can any property be taken under such search. One however can be searched if given probable cause and reason with any items to be taken under that reason. If more than person is to be searched, more warrant and more reason are to be given to said person.
What reason is a good reason? Drugs, sex trafficking, dead bodies, a smelly pet? How does one go to a judge and say "I need to search this person's house because of belief that something wrong is happening in that residence?" Obviously they would have to be much more specific in their reasoning but there have been instances when one does not gain the correct documentation to enter one's place of living and they do so within a time frame that is better for them and not directly by this amendment.
This is an instance where Indiana goes against this amendment, which I thought was something that was'n't able to be done by a State as the Constitution is the higher law of the land and told in a loud in and in your face and posterized manner. The bald guy makes a good point in what I said. That the Constitution is the highest law of the land and that any State law cannot overturn it.
This image above shows a "suspiscious" group of people being told that they are to be searched because the police officer thinks he has ample reason to invade their rights of any property on their persons. Can using this right in such a manner be helpful , yes, but in most cases the search has to be probable, not just because a person looked "suspicious."
Post a Comment