What is your fourth amendment right worth?

[Jogeephus]

I was filling out some paperwork today for yet another license mandated by the state and came across something that gave me pause. As a condition of the license, I would have to agree to give up my fourth amendment rights under the US constitution. Not having the license is a misdemeanor.

Its not like I have anything to hide but I got to thinking if this little bit of protection from over exuberant government intervention was valuable enough to die for or fight for should I give it up so easily? Or, more importantly, is it even proper for an agency to request that you give up this right? I'm going to leave it at that cause I know this thread could get a little heated so what I'd like to do is to do a poll and see what you think.

 

[highgrit]

We are the nation of the free and lets try and keep it that way. If they get a search warrant fine, other wise it won't be pretty. I have got to old to fight but i can still shoot half way straight most of the time. Without the fourth amendment we will lose the second amendment real fast. But some jobs require you to be searched comming and going. What is Unreasonable search and seizure? It all depends I guess. Good Luck

 

[bear]

This will be interesting! What is the nature of your license that anyone would ask you to give up your fourth amendment rights?
Bear

 

[Jim62]

I was not aware that compliance or non-compliance with constitutional amendments was optional

 

[CottageFarm]

I'm going to assume that by signing the application and receiving the license you will be granting the state permission to randomly inspect your property (land, facilities, animals, accounts, whatever) at any time, whether or not they have due cause.
It would seem to me that the plethora of grandstanding attorneys in the country would try to challenge this sort of thing, but they don't and government agencies, large and small, get away with it all the time. They are effectivvly coercing citizens to give up a right by threatening fines or imprisonment if they refuse. According to the constitution, goverment can't do that, and yet they do, and they get away with it, with impunity.
Were it me, in the same position, I would probably apply/obtain for the license, to cover my bases on the licensing requirement, (possibly striking out the malicious clause) and then go looking for one of those legal organisations intended to help the little guy, who would bring one of those et al. suits against the state to have the regulation/law changed to pass constitutional muster, (or better yet, elimated all together) :2cents: :bang:

 

[dun]

I was not aware that compliance or non-compliance with constitutional amendments was optional

Pretty obvious that a lot of you didn;t spend any time in the military.

 

[ga.prime]

I can think of numerous places where random searches are necessarily and rightfully legal. Airports for one. Inside the guard lines of a prison another. A drug test required by application for a job or for continued employment is a random search.

 

[CottageFarm]

I can think of numerous places where random searches are necessarily and rightfully legal. Airports for one. Inside the guard lines of a prison another. A drug test required by application for a job or for continued employment is a random search.

Those examples are not truly anagolous here. You can choose not to be searched at an airport by not flying.
You can choose not to be subjected to drug tests by not working for that caompany.
Prisoners lose certain rights by committing crimes, etc.
He's being threatened, in essence, with the violation of a regulation/law if he does not waive his rights. Because of arbitrary regulation he's not being given a legal choice, other than to not participate in an otherwise legal commerce, one in which he may already be participating.
That being said, yes people are subjected to random search and seizure on a regular basis. That does not mean it's constitutional. And whether it's always right and necessary can also be debated ad nauseum but this isn't the place to do it.

 

[ga.prime]

I can think of numerous places where random searches are necessarily and rightfully legal. Airports for one. Inside the guard lines of a prison another. A drug test required by application for a job or for continued employment is a random search.

Those examples are not truly anagolous here. You can choose not to be searched at an airport by not flying.
You can choose not to be subjected to drug tests by not working for that caompany.

Jo can choose not to be searched by not getting the license.

Prisoners lose certain rights by committing crimes, etc.

I'm talking about vehicles and visitors and employees that go behind guard lines.

That being said, yes people are subjected to random search and seizure on a regular basis. That does not mean it's constitutional. And whether it's always right and necessary can also be debated ad nauseum but this isn't the place to do it.

Well now I think the whole point of this thread was to debate the issue. You've got your opinion and I've got mine. Debate over from this end.

 

[Dave]

Can a person by signing a piece of paper give away their constitutional rights?

If they were wanting to search you without a search warrent could you just toss the licence back at them? Telling them that you no longer wish to be licenced and thus requiring them to have a search warrent?

 

[Anonymous]

I would look into the way the clause is written..are you ONLY giving up the right as it pertains to the license? Even then I would think twice about it. Its not a right anyone should give up easily. My opinion, its yet another case of the gvt protecting us from ourselves. But who's going to protect us from them?????

 

[cow pollinater]

I can think of numerous places where random searches are necessarily and rightfully legal. Airports for one. Inside the guard lines of a prison another. A drug test required by application for a job or for continued employment is a random search.

Airport searches fall into the same grey area as a DUI checkpoint or a customs search. What they have to do is set up criteria ahead of time-as in "today we will search every fourth person" and in that way any violations that are found are considered random and cause for further investigation since no suspect was ever chosen.
Convicted felons forfit certain rights such as voting priveleges and search and seizure protection. They can be searched by any government official at any time until they are out of prison and off parole. Guests and employees are made aware that they will be searched before they enter the prison thereby giving them the opertunity not to enter.
A drug test from any employer is willful. You can choose not to take it, you just loose your job. ;-) Drug testing isn't mandatory until law enforcement has probable cause to believe that you are under the influence in which case they have a reason to further investigate.
None of the above is anywhere near the equivelant of having the state come stomping into a lawful place of business without any reasonable suspician of wrongdoing just because they can.
I think losing my rights would be a deal breaker for me.

 

[ga.prime]

I can think of numerous places where random searches are necessarily and rightfully legal. Airports for one. Inside the guard lines of a prison another. A drug test required by application for a job or for continued employment is a random search.

Airport searches fall into the same grey area as a DUI checkpoint or a customs search. What they have to do is set up criteria ahead of time-as in "today we will search every fourth person" and in that way any violations that are found are considered random and cause for further investigation since no suspect was ever chosen.
Convicted felons forfit certain rights such as voting priveleges and search and seizure protection. They can be searched by any government official at any time until they are out of prison and off parole. Guests and employees are made aware that they will be searched before they enter the prison thereby giving them the opertunity not to enter.
A drug test from any employer is willful. You can choose not to take it, you just loose your job. ;-) Drug testing isn't mandatory until law enforcement has probable cause to believe that you are under the influence in which case they have a reason to further investigate.
None of the above is anywhere near the equivelant of having the state come stomping into a lawful place of business without any reasonable suspician of wrongdoing just because they can.
I think losing my rights would be a deal breaker for me.

Where does this apply?

 

[cow pollinater]

Where does this apply?

Where Jogeephus signs a document waiving his rights in order to get the license. Currently he is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" which means probable cause and random but specified searches are allowed but they can't just come search because they want to. If he waives that right they can come have a peek whenever they want and ANYTHING they see is pursuable if they choose to pursue it.

 

[ga.prime]

Where does this apply?

Where Jogeephus signs a document waiving his forth amendment rights to get the license.

All looks the same to me. It's a trade off in every instance you cited.

 

[cow pollinater]

Where does this apply?

Where Jogeephus signs a document waiving his forth amendment rights to get the license.

All looks the same to me. It's a trade off in every instance you cited.

If it's all the same as in you also believe it's an impediment to our freedom in each circumstance then we may be in somewhat of a state of agreement.
If it's all the same as in you believe the government should be allowed to tresspass against a lawfull business just to see what they can find then I hope you don't vote.

 

[CottageFarm]

If it's all the same as in you also believe it's an impediment to our freedom in each circumstance then we may be in somewhat of a state of agreement.
If it's all the same as in you believe the government should be allowed to tresspass against a lawfull business just to see what they can find then I hope you don't vote.

[/quote]


:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

I told myself not to look at this thread anymore or I would get in big trouble..... :bang:

 

[ga.prime]

I was filling out some paperwork today for yet another license mandated by the state and came across something that gave me pause. As a condition of the license, I would have to agree to give up my fourth amendment rights under the US constitution. Not having the license is a misdemeanor.

Its not like I have anything to hide but I got to thinking if this little bit of protection from over exuberant government intervention was valuable enough to die for or fight for should I give it up so easily? Or, more importantly, is it even proper for an agency to request that you give up this right? I'm going to leave it at that cause I know this thread could get a little heated so what I'd like to do is to do a poll and see what you think.

There's what Jo said.

From this scant information how do you reach the following conclusion:

Where does this apply?

Where Jogeephus signs a document waiving his rights in order to get the license. Currently he is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" which means probable cause and random but specified searches are allowed but they can't just come search because they want to. If he waives that right they can come have a peek whenever they want and ANYTHING they see is pursuable if they choose to pursue it.

How do you know that Jo is not only submitting to random drug testing or vehicle searches when he enters or leaves a military base or something of that nature?

 

[upfrombottom]

In the State of Arkansas, if you have a liquor or beer permit, anything or anyplace you use while conducting business or anyplace that you store data or paperwork is subject to search. If you have a firearms dealer license in the US, you give up the same rights.

 

[cow pollinater]

We are ALL subject to REASONABLE search and seizure such as prisons, dui checkpoints, etc... There is no reason in the world for them to want him to forfiet his rights to unreasonable search and seizure unless they want the right to search for no reason.
To put it into perspective:
If a cop pulls you over for a broken tail light, he can ask you if he can search your car. If you say "no" he waves and drives away because you haven't done anything wrong to give him any reason to search your car. You fix your tailight and all is well. He had no reason to suspect anything more than a broken tailight.

Without fourth amendment protection, that same cop can tear you and your car down to shreds over the same broken tailight and look for whatever he wants and he doesn't need the broken tailight as a reason to stop you. He can stop you because you're there since you waived the right that forced him to give you a reason to search you. Better hope you didn't buy that car from a junkie 'cause you can't tell those drug sniffing dogs "no" and it is in your possession.

We're getting into politics so I'm done. I didn't mean to pick on you ga.prime. It just happened that your post is the one that set me into gear. Peace.