12345...1020...


Fourth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal …

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.

Read more here:

Fourth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal …

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

More:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

View post:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland …

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of IrelandTo permit marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sexLocation IrelandDate22May2015(2015-05-22)ResultsVotes% Yes1,201,607700162070000000000062.07% No734,300700137930000000000037.93%Valid votes1,935,907700199290000000000099.29%Invalid or blank votes13,81869997100000000000000.71%Total votes1,949,725100.00%Registered voters/turnout3,221,681700160520000000000060.52%Results by constituencyHow the electorate voted, by constituency. Proportion of the valid poll voting yes:

72.5%75%

70%72.49%

67.5%69.99%

65%67.49%

62.5%64.99%

60%62.49%

57.5%59.99%

55%57.49%

52.5%54.99%

50%52.49%

48.58%

The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Act 2015 (previously bill no. 5 of 2015) amended the Constitution of Ireland to permit marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex.[2] Prior to the enactment, the Constitution was assumed to contain an implicit prohibition on same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland.[3] It was approved at a referendum on 22 May 2015 by 62% of voters on a turnout of 61%.[1][4] This was the first time that a state legalised same-sex marriage through a popular vote.[5][6] Two legal challenges regarding the conduct of the referendum were dismissed on 30 July by the Court of Appeal,[7] and the bill was signed into law by the President of Ireland on 29 August.[8] The Marriage Act 2015 then amended marriage law to give effect to the constitutional amendment, and the first same-sex marriages took place on 16 November 2015.[9]

The amendment inserted a new section 4 to Article 41 of the Constitution. The English text reads:

4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

The Irish text reads:

4. Fadfaidh beirt, gan beann ar a ngnas, conradh psta a dhanamh de rir dl.

The text in Irish and English is intended to have the same meaning; in the event of a conflict, the Irish version takes precedence.[10][11]

The Irish text of the amendment as introduced was:[12]

4. Fadfaidh beirt, cib acu is fir n mn iad, conradh a dhanamh i leith psadh de rir dl.

Journalist Bruce Arnold argued against the bill in two articles in The Irish Times, one of which focused on alleged issues with the Irish text.[10][13] Arnold argued that the Irish text describes only same-sex couples, thus rendering opposite-sex marriage illegal.[10] Government sources pointed out the words impugned by Arnold (“beirt” and “cib acu is fir n mn”) are already used with similar intent elsewhere in the constitution.[14] Counterpoints from legal academics were that Arnold’s strict constructionist interpretation would be trumped by the doctrine of absurdity, and that failure to mention opposite-sex marriage would not make it illegal.[14] Some argued that the Irish text should nevertheless be changed to remove all doubts.[14] Enda Kenny announced on 10 March 2015 that such a change would be made.[15] Frances Fitzgerald moved the amendment in the Dil the following day.[16]

Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan lost a case in the High Court in 2006 for the recognition by Ireland of their Canadian same-sex marriage.[17] The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 instituted civil partnership in Irish law. After the 2011 general election, the Fine Gael and Labour parties formed a coalition government, whose programme included the establishment of a Constitutional Convention to examine potential changes on specified issues, including “Provision for the legalisation of same-sex marriage”. The Convention considered the issue in May 2013 and voted to recommend that the state should be required, rather than merely permitted, to allow for same-sex marriage.[18] Its report was formally submitted in July and the government formally responded in December, when Taoiseach Enda Kenny said a referendum would be held “no later than mid-2015”.[19] All amendments to the Irish constitution must be approved by the people in a referendum before becoming law.

Some legal academics claimed that extending marriage to same-sex couples did not require a constitutional amendment and could have been accomplished by an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas.[20][21] Then-minister Shatter disagreed in November 2013, stating that there was “ample case law” to the effect that “marriage is understood as being between one man and one woman”.[3]

In January 2015, the wording of the proposed amendment was agreed at a special cabinet meeting and published in the press, and the bill was formally introduced in the Dil by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald.[22][23]

A separate Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 was passed in April 2015. This included adoption rights for same-sex couples prior to the passing of the Act, single gay or lesbian people, or one of the partners in a same-sex couple could adopt, but joint adoption by both partners was not possible.[24] The general scheme of this bill was published for consultation in January 2014,[25] and in 2015 it was passed by the Dil on 12 March and the Seanad on 30 March, and signed into law on 6 April.[26][27] As of May 2018[update] the legislation has only partially been commenced.[28]

Two referendums were held on 22 May 2015, on the marriage bill and another constitutional amendment, to reduce the age of candidacy for the presidency.[29][30] Referendums need a simple majority of the votes cast to pass. A Dil by-election in CarlowKilkenny was held on the same day.[29]

According to the Referendum Commission, if the referendum is passed:[31]

The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015 was debated in the Dil on 10 and 11 March 2015. Several deputies from different parties spoke in favour. The only speaker to oppose it was independent TD Mattie McGrath; it was passed without a division (i.e., by voice vote). It was then debated in the Seanad on 25 and 27 March. Votes were held on a number of proposed amendments, all of which were defeated, and the Bill was finally passed by 29 votes to three. Among those speaking in favour was Katherine Zappone, who was a Senator at the time. Those who voted against were Senators Rnn Mullen, Jim Walsh and Feargal Quinn; the opposition amendments were also supported by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.[33]

All four main parties in the Dil supported the bill: the governing Fine Gael and Labour, and the opposition Fianna Fil and Sinn Fin. Members of the Green Party, Anti-Austerity Alliance, People Before Profit Alliance, Workers’ Party of Ireland and independents are also on record in support of the amendment.[34] “Yes Equality” was an umbrella campaign by Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN), the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Marriage Equality.[35]

Religious bodies in Ireland officially adopted stances that were either neutral or opposed to the referendum. The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference is opposed to same-sex marriage, and has distributed a booklet to all parishes.[36][37] In February 2015, the Methodist Church in Ireland issued a statement supporting the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and woman.[38] In April 2015, a cross-denominational group issued a leaflet urging a No vote. Two bishops (one Roman Catholic and one Church of Ireland), and ministers and lay members of the Methodist, Presbyterian various Pentecostal churches signed and distributed the leaflet.[39] On 22 April 2015, the leaders of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a statement advocating a no vote, saying “the change proposed in the same-sex marriage referendum denies the rights of children and the natural responsibilities of a father and a mother in nurturing them”.[40] The Iona Institute, a mainly-Catholic religious think tank, also opposed the amendment.[41]

However, in February 2015, the Church of Ireland announced that it was not taking a stance on the referendum, but was urging its members to vote according to their conscience.[42][43] Two Church of Ireland bishops called for a Yes vote. As early as May 2014, the Church of Ireland Bishop of Cork, Dr Paul Colton had signalled his support for a yes vote.[44] Similarly, the Islamic Centre in Ireland issued a statement on 17 April stating that “As Muslims we must believe in equality and inclusiveness. People should not be discriminated for any reason. It is important to humanise people and not to de humanise. The Islamic tradition teaches to hate the sin but not the sinner. The attitude of some Muslims towards homosexuals is incompatible with the spirit of mercy and kindness in Islam. The Irish constitution guarantees all Irish citizens the freedom of conscience and Muslims must exercise this right when voting on 22nd May 2015.”[45]

A petition initiated by a number of religious groups including the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, the Irish Council of Imams, and the Galway branch of the Reformed Presbyterian Church on 15 April called for a “conscience clause”, which would allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples in the provision of goods and services. In response, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said: “The Government has made its decision very clear here in respect to the question that the people will be asked on the 22nd of May. That question of course is to give their approval, if they see fit and I hope they do, to allow for marriage in civil law irrespective of sexual orientation.” Brendan Howlin said “The one issue at the core of this referendum is equality under the Constitution and anything else is extraneous.”[46]

However, some religious-affiliated groups were in favour of the referendum. In January 2015, the Church of Ireland LGBT group Changing Attitude Ireland welcomed the publication of the wording of the Marriage Equality Referendum. Dr Richard OLeary, the organisation’s chair, said that marriage should be “available to couples without distinction as to their sex”, just as civil marriage “may be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their race or religion”.[42] On 7 May, at a Changing Attitude Ireland event, former Archdeacon of Dublin, Gordon Linney said “We are being given an opportunity on May 22 finally to show the gay community that we value them for who they are. We welcome them as they are fully into society and so give them the recognition they are entitled to and that those who are in stable relationships and wish to marry should be allowed to do so. Marriage is a civil contract. No church will be forced to solemnise any union it does not approve of.”[47]

Many business groups advocated for the passing of the referendum. On 16 April, Business for Yes Equality launched, with high-profile companies such as Twitter, eBay, PayPal and 150 Irish-based international and local companies joining.[48][49] Stephen McIntyre, MD of Twitter in Ireland, said “As I see it, this case has three key elements. First, people perform better in the long run when they can be themselves. Second, talent is attracted to organisations which demonstrate an appreciation for diversity, inclusiveness and equality. Finally, Irelands international reputation as a good place to do business will be enhanced by a Yes vote.”[50] Martin Shanahan, the head of IDA Ireland, the Industrial Development Authority, called for a Yes vote on 1 May, saying “A Yes vote on May 22 would tell the business world that Ireland is open, inclusive and welcomes diversity and that would be a very positive message to be sending internationally.”[51] He also said he believed that a No vote would send a negative signal to international businesses.[52]

Also on 1 May, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions announced its support for the Yes campaign with the launch of its “Trade unions for civil marriage equality” campaign.[53] Other trade unions and staff representative associations supporting a Yes vote included the Garda Representative Association, Mandate, and Ireland’s largest trade union SIPTU.[54][55][56]

On 7 May, eBay CEO John Donahoe announced that the company was backing a Yes vote. Donahoe said that its position on equality issues such as same-sex marriage, in addition to being “the right thing to do”, also helps the company attract, retain and develop the right people.[57]

Other prominent groups to support the referendum included a coalition of Ireland’s main children’s charities called “BeLonG To Yes”. Constituent organisations include the ISPCC, Barnardo’s, Forige, Youth Work Ireland, the Migrant Rights Centre, Headstrong, Yes Equality, the Children’s Rights Alliance, Pavee Point, EPIC and the National Youth Council of Ireland. Speaking at the launch, Fergus Finlay said they had come together to call for a Yes vote in part because groups within the No campaign were “using children as pawns” and that every time he saw a poster calling for a No vote because “every child deserves a mother and father”, he saw “a sickening insult to the thousands of lone parents and children who love and care for each other in Ireland. The message is exploitative, hurtful and dishonest. What every child deserves is love, respect, safety. That can come from two parents of either sex, two parents of the same-sex, or a single parent.”[58][59] The Union of Students in Ireland, then led by Laura Harmon, launched its “Students for Marriage Equality” campaign in January together with its dedicated website, voteforlove.ie.[60]

Amnesty International launched their “Let’s Make History”[61] campaign for marriage equality on 22 March 2015 to thousands of people outside the historic General Post Office, Dublin.[62] Speakers included Colm O’Gorman, Pat Carey, Sabina Brennan, Gavin Brennan and Grace Dyas.

On 5 May, the “Yes for Health” campaign was launched by Liam Doran, general secretary of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation and Kieran Ryan, CEO of the Irish College of General Practitioners. Speaking at the launch, Minister for Health Leo Varadkar said that a No vote would be a “big step backwards” for the country, and that it would have an adverse effect on the mental health of members of the LGBT community.[63] The following day, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and launched their ‘Yes’ campaign. The launch was attended by representatives of various groups, including the Irish Feminist Network, Digi Women and the Association of Childcare Professionals.[64] On 7 May, the Law Society of Ireland announced its support for a Yes vote. Ken Murphy, the society’s Director General, said that the society was taking a public stance because marriage equality was an issue of fundamental human rights. The decision followed a report from the society’s human rights committee, which found that there were 160 ways in which civil partnership, compared to civil marriage, was the lesser of the two unions.[65]

Some groups were also formed in opposition to the referendum. On 18 April, Mothers and Fathers Matter, formed in 2014 to oppose the Children and Family Relationships Bill, launched its No campaign.[66][67] First Families First, a group of three people headed by children’s and disabilities campaigner Kathy Sinnott, and fathers rights campaigner John Waters launched its campaign for a No vote on 1 May.[68] On 7 May, a group called StandUp4Marriage launched. Its founder, Senator Jim Walsh said the launch was sparsely attended because people who want to vote no are afraid to speak out.[47]

The following organisations registered as “approved bodies” to monitor postal voting and vote counting: Comhar Crosta, Marriage Equality, Yes Equality Cork, Green Party, Mothers & Fathers Matter, Fianna Fil, Labour Party, BeLonG to Youth Services, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, GLEN Campaign for Marriage, National LGBT Federation, Sinn Fin, and Fine Gael.[69][70][71]

Broadcasters are legally required to cover referendum campaigns in a balanced manner. Several complaints were made to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) that programmes and presenters had unfairly favoured the Yes side. The BAI rejected these in its October 2015 report.[72][73]

A 2014 poll showed that support was strongest among younger voters, and that Sinn Fin and Labour voters were somewhat more in favour than Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.[91][84][89]

Counting began at 09:00 IST on 23 May (08:00 UTC). Early tallies quickly began to indicate a victory for the Yes campaign, with Minister of State Aodhn Rordin declaring a “landslide” victory across Dublin only 8 minutes into counting.[95] Key figures in the No campaign, including David Quinn began conceding defeat as early as 10:00, long ahead of any constituencies declaring their final count.[96]

Urban regions generally recorded higher approval ratings for the change. The highest Yes percentages were recorded in the Dublin Region with the all of the top ten by Yes vote percentage being in the region (with a total yes vote of 71% for the region), and all of the top 15 located in the Greater Dublin Area. Cork’s urban constituencies also ranked above the national average, as did Limerick city. Although the Donegal constituencies had been expected to return a No vote,[97] and indeed, of all constituencies reporting a majority Yes vote, the lowest margin was recorded in Donegal South-West where a Yes vote was carried by a margin of only 33 votes RoscommonSouth Leitrim was the only constituency to return a majority No vote.

The national results were as follows:[98]

Dublin Castle, where the result of referendum was officially announced, was opened to the public for the duration of the count, with numbers limited to 2,000 at any one time. A carnival atmosphere prevailed all day after early count tallies indicated that the result would be a Yes. Celebrations and street parties took place at many venues in cities around Ireland, with Dublin celebrations centred between gay venues Pantibar and The George, and Dublin Castle.[101]

Taoiseach Enda Kenny said “With today’s Yes vote we have disclosed who we are a generous, compassionate, bold and joyful people. The referendum was about inclusiveness and equality, about love and commitment being enshrined in the constitution. The people have spoken. They have said yes. Ireland thank you.”[102]

Tnaiste Joan Burton described Ireland as a “rainbow nation” and said “In Ireland, we are known as a nation of storytellers and today, the people have told quite some story. Together, the people of Ireland have struck a massive blow against discrimination as we extend the right of marriage to all our citizens.” Leo Varadkar, Minister for Health and Ireland’s first openly gay cabinet minister, said “It is a historic day for Ireland. We are the first country in the world to enshrine marriage equality in our constitution and to do it through popular mandate. That makes us a beacon of equality and liberty to the rest of the world, so it’s a very proud day for the Irish people.”[102]

Michel Martin, Fianna Fil leader and Leader of the Opposition, who supported the amendment, said “there is something in the DNA of Irish people that reacts to inequality”, adding “It is something that Irish people do not accept historically and I believe this ballot is a vote in favour of a more inclusive, equal and just society.”[103] However, Senator Averil Power resigned from Fianna Fil after the referendum, alleging that many of its TDs and Senators had refused to canvass or leaflet for a Yes vote, and that its low profile in the Yes campaign was “cynical and cowardly”.[104][105]

The leader of Sinn Fin, Gerry Adams, said “We have a new era of equality and that is a good day for Ireland.”[102]

Veteran gay and civil rights campaigner, Senator David Norris, who was one of the key figures in having homosexuality decriminalised, said “I think it’s wonderful. It’s a little bit late for me. As I said the other day, Ive spent so much time pushing the boat out that I forgot to jump on and now it’s out beyond the harbour on the high seas, but it’s very nice to look at.”[106]

Katherine Zappone, the first openly lesbian member of the Oireachtas, proposed remarrying her wife on air.[107]

Diarmuid Martin, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin told RT that the church needed a “reality check.” He said “I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution.” He added “I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I’m saying there’s a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church”.[108]

The Church of Ireland issued a statement indicating that it “defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and the result of this referendum does not alter this.” The Archbishops and bishops also called for “a spirit of public generosity, both from those for whom the result of the referendum represents triumph, and from those for whom it signifies disaster”.[109][110]

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland said it was “deeply disappointed and saddened that the Constitution will no longer reflect the historic and Christian view of marriage that it is exclusively between one man and one woman.”[111]

Under the Referendum Act 1994, the returning officer issued a provisional certificate of the referendum result to the Master of the High Court and published a notice in Iris Oifigiil, the official gazette.[1][128][129] Citizens have seven days in which to lodge a petition challenging the result.[130][129] If no petition is upheld, the provisional certificate is certified as final by the Master of the High Court and the bill is sent to the President of Ireland to be signed into law, thereby amending the constitution.[131][129] Two petitions against the marriage referendum were rejected in the High Court in June and the Court of Appeal in July, after which the bill was signed by President Michael D. Higgins on 29 August 2015.[8][132]

The provisional referendum certificate was issued on 25 May 2015 and published the following day in Iris Oifigiil.[1] Two separate petitions challenging the certificate were lodged within the time limit and considered in the High Court on 5 June 2015.[133] The petitioners, Gerry Walshe and Maurice J. Lyons, were lay litigants.[134] Walsh argued that political parties receiving state funding should have been prohibited from campaigning; that copies of the amendment should have been available at post offices; and that the secrecy of the ballot was compromised by serial numbers on ballot papers and CCTV cameras in some polling stations.[134][135] Lyons argued that the amendment is too vaguely worded and incompatible with the constitution’s Christian ethos and reference to “woman … in the home”; and also that non-voters should have been counted as no-voters.[136][137] Nicholas Kearns, President of the High Court, dismissed both applications and awarded costs against the petitioners.[138][136][139] Walshe and Lyons appealed the decisions, and on 29 June the Court of Appeal scheduled hearings for 30 July.[140][141][142][143] On 30 July the court upheld the dismissals and the costs awards against both petitioners.[7][144] The remaining steps were as prescribed by the Referendum Act 1994: on 24 August the High Court’s Master formally notified the referendum returning officer Rona N Fhlanghaile that it had not accepted any petition;[145] on 28 August N Fhlanghaile sent the final referendum certificate to the Taoiseach and President;[146] on 29 August the President signing the amendment into law.[147][148][132][149]

Meanwhile, on 27 August, both Walshe and Lyons applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, although neither sought a stay on the Master or returning officer’s actions, and their applications did not prevent the bill being signed into law.[147][150] On 16 September, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, stating neither applicant had raised any points of substance.[151][152] The Supreme Court criticised the decision to finalise the referendum certificate before it had made its decision;[153] however, the High Court on 23 September rejected a claim by Walshe that the certificate was therefore invalid.[148][154] The President’s office and the Department of the Environment also stated they had acted in accordance with the law.[132][155] The Master of the High Court said the problem arose because the Referendum Act 1994 did not take account of the Court of Appeal, created in 2014 under the Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution.[147][155] Lecturer Conor O’Mahony suggested the Master, though not obliged to wait for a Supreme Court appeal, might better have chosen to do so.[155] The Supreme Court suggested that the applicants’ failure to request a stay on the Court of Appeal decision pending request for a Supreme Court Appeal was a consequence of their being lay litigants, and that a professional lawyer would not have made such an omission.[156]

In March 2015, the Department of Justice published the general scheme of the Marriage Bill 2015, setting out the changes to be made to marriage law if the proposed amendment was enacted. These include removing the current legislative bar on same-sex couples marrying,[157] allowing foreign same-sex marriages to be registered in Ireland as marriages rather than as civil partnerships,[158] and dissolving a civil partnership if the partners marry each other.[159] Authorised solemnisers of marriage from religious groups would be allowed to refuse to officiate at same-sex ceremonies.[160][161] Lawyer Benedict Floinn felt the bill’s drafting should have been completed before the referendum, to minimise the lacuna during which statute law is out of step with the constitution.[162] The Gender Recognition Act 2015 requires a transgender person to be unmarried to recognise a change of legal sex;[163] the Marriage Bill intends to remove this restriction.[164][165]

The government hoped to have the Marriage Bill enacted before the Oireachtas’ summer adjournment, but the referendum petition hearings in the Court of Appeal delayed this.[140][141][166] The government intended to enact the Marriage Bill “as early as possible” after the Dil’s resumption on 22 September 2015.[167] The bill provides that applications for civil partnership pending when it comes into force can be converted into applications for marriage.[168][167][169] The Minister for Justice stated that marriages under this provision should take place by November.[169][170] The bill was approved at a cabinet meeting on 16 September for publication the following day.[171] It passed its final stage in the legislature on 22 October 2015[172] and (in the absence of the President, who was out of the country) was signed into law on 29 October 2015 by the Presidential Commission.[173]

The Marriage Act 2015 came into force on 16 November 2015.[174] The first same-sex marriage ceremony was the next day in Clonmel, County Tipperary.[175]

See the original post:

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland …

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

Originally posted here:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment Activities | United States Courts

Apply landmark Supreme Court cases to contemporary scenarios related to search and seizure issues at your school, in your car, and your home.

“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.”Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Brendlin v. CaliforniaPassengers, police stops, and protection from unreasonable seizure

New Jersey v. T.L.O.Purse search at school and protection from unreasonable searches

View post:

Fourth Amendment Activities | United States Courts

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

More:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment

ABA Journal Web 100, Best Law Blogs (2017); ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2015-16)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-18,online since Feb. 24, 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit EleventhCircuit D.C. CircuitFederal CircuitForeign Intell.Surv.Ct.FDsys, many district courts, other federal courtsMilitary Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General’s site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Oyez Project (NWU) “On the Docket”Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com’t’ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: –Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

“If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn’t, and they don’t.” Me

I am still learning.Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500’s)).

“Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government.” Shemaya, in the Thalmud

“A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one’s attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced.” Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev’d Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

“The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

“Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment.”Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

“There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.” Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

“The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth.” Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

“A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

“For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. … But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

“You can’t always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need.” Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

“In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up.” Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!—Pep Le Pew

Website design by Wally Waller, Little Rock

Read more here:

Fourth Amendment

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland …

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of IrelandTo permit marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sexLocation IrelandDate22May2015(2015-05-22)ResultsVotes% Yes1,201,607700162070000000000062.07% No734,300700137930000000000037.93%Valid votes1,935,907700199290000000000099.29%Invalid or blank votes13,81869997100000000000000.71%Total votes1,949,725100.00%Registered voters/turnout3,221,681700160520000000000060.52%Results by constituencyHow the electorate voted, by constituency. Proportion of the valid poll voting yes:

72.5%75%

70%72.49%

67.5%69.99%

65%67.49%

62.5%64.99%

60%62.49%

57.5%59.99%

55%57.49%

52.5%54.99%

50%52.49%

48.58%

The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Act 2015 (previously bill no. 5 of 2015) amended the Constitution of Ireland to permit marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex.[2] Prior to the enactment, the Constitution was assumed to contain an implicit prohibition on same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland.[3] It was approved at a referendum on 22 May 2015 by 62% of voters on a turnout of 61%.[1][4] This was the first time that a state legalised same-sex marriage through a popular vote.[5][6] Two legal challenges regarding the conduct of the referendum were dismissed on 30 July by the Court of Appeal,[7] and the bill was signed into law by the President of Ireland on 29 August.[8] The Marriage Act 2015 then amended marriage law to give effect to the constitutional amendment, and the first same-sex marriages took place on 16 November 2015.[9]

The amendment inserted a new section 4 to Article 41 of the Constitution. The English text reads:

4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

The Irish text reads:

4. Fadfaidh beirt, gan beann ar a ngnas, conradh psta a dhanamh de rir dl.

The text in Irish and English is intended to have the same meaning; in the event of a conflict, the Irish version takes precedence.[10][11]

The Irish text of the amendment as introduced was:[12]

4. Fadfaidh beirt, cib acu is fir n mn iad, conradh a dhanamh i leith psadh de rir dl.

Journalist Bruce Arnold argued against the bill in two articles in The Irish Times, one of which focused on alleged issues with the Irish text.[10][13] Arnold argued that the Irish text describes only same-sex couples, thus rendering opposite-sex marriage illegal.[10] Government sources pointed out the words impugned by Arnold (“beirt” and “cib acu is fir n mn”) are already used with similar intent elsewhere in the constitution.[14] Counterpoints from legal academics were that Arnold’s strict constructionist interpretation would be trumped by the doctrine of absurdity, and that failure to mention opposite-sex marriage would not make it illegal.[14] Some argued that the Irish text should nevertheless be changed to remove all doubts.[14] Enda Kenny announced on 10 March 2015 that such a change would be made.[15] Frances Fitzgerald moved the amendment in the Dil the following day.[16]

Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan lost a case in the High Court in 2006 for the recognition by Ireland of their Canadian same-sex marriage.[17] The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 instituted civil partnership in Irish law. After the 2011 general election, the Fine Gael and Labour parties formed a coalition government, whose programme included the establishment of a Constitutional Convention to examine potential changes on specified issues, including “Provision for the legalisation of same-sex marriage”. The Convention considered the issue in May 2013 and voted to recommend that the state should be required, rather than merely permitted, to allow for same-sex marriage.[18] Its report was formally submitted in July and the government formally responded in December, when Taoiseach Enda Kenny said a referendum would be held “no later than mid-2015”.[19] All amendments to the Irish constitution must be approved by the people in a referendum before becoming law.

Some legal academics claimed that extending marriage to same-sex couples did not require a constitutional amendment and could have been accomplished by an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas.[20][21] Then-minister Shatter disagreed in November 2013, stating that there was “ample case law” to the effect that “marriage is understood as being between one man and one woman”.[3]

In January 2015, the wording of the proposed amendment was agreed at a special cabinet meeting and published in the press, and the bill was formally introduced in the Dil by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald.[22][23]

A separate Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 was passed in April 2015. This included adoption rights for same-sex couples prior to the passing of the Act, single gay or lesbian people, or one of the partners in a same-sex couple could adopt, but joint adoption by both partners was not possible.[24] The general scheme of this bill was published for consultation in January 2014,[25] and in 2015 it was passed by the Dil on 12 March and the Seanad on 30 March, and signed into law on 6 April.[26][27] As of May 2018[update] the legislation has only partially been commenced.[28]

Two referendums were held on 22 May 2015, on the marriage bill and another constitutional amendment, to reduce the age of candidacy for the presidency.[29][30] Referendums need a simple majority of the votes cast to pass. A Dil by-election in CarlowKilkenny was held on the same day.[29]

According to the Referendum Commission, if the referendum is passed:[31]

The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015 was debated in the Dil on 10 and 11 March 2015. Several deputies from different parties spoke in favour. The only speaker to oppose it was independent TD Mattie McGrath; it was passed without a division (i.e., by voice vote). It was then debated in the Seanad on 25 and 27 March. Votes were held on a number of proposed amendments, all of which were defeated, and the Bill was finally passed by 29 votes to three. Among those speaking in favour was Katherine Zappone, who was a Senator at the time. Those who voted against were Senators Rnn Mullen, Jim Walsh and Feargal Quinn; the opposition amendments were also supported by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.[33]

All four main parties in the Dil supported the bill: the governing Fine Gael and Labour, and the opposition Fianna Fil and Sinn Fin. Members of the Green Party, Anti-Austerity Alliance, People Before Profit Alliance, Workers’ Party of Ireland and independents are also on record in support of the amendment.[34] “Yes Equality” was an umbrella campaign by Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN), the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Marriage Equality.[35]

Religious bodies in Ireland officially adopted stances that were either neutral or opposed to the referendum. The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference is opposed to same-sex marriage, and has distributed a booklet to all parishes.[36][37] In February 2015, the Methodist Church in Ireland issued a statement supporting the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and woman.[38] In April 2015, a cross-denominational group issued a leaflet urging a No vote. Two bishops (one Roman Catholic and one Church of Ireland), and ministers and lay members of the Methodist, Presbyterian various Pentecostal churches signed and distributed the leaflet.[39] On 22 April 2015, the leaders of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a statement advocating a no vote, saying “the change proposed in the same-sex marriage referendum denies the rights of children and the natural responsibilities of a father and a mother in nurturing them”.[40] The Iona Institute, a mainly-Catholic religious think tank, also opposed the amendment.[41]

However, in February 2015, the Church of Ireland announced that it was not taking a stance on the referendum, but was urging its members to vote according to their conscience.[42][43] Two Church of Ireland bishops called for a Yes vote. As early as May 2014, the Church of Ireland Bishop of Cork, Dr Paul Colton had signalled his support for a yes vote.[44] Similarly, the Islamic Centre in Ireland issued a statement on 17 April stating that “As Muslims we must believe in equality and inclusiveness. People should not be discriminated for any reason. It is important to humanise people and not to de humanise. The Islamic tradition teaches to hate the sin but not the sinner. The attitude of some Muslims towards homosexuals is incompatible with the spirit of mercy and kindness in Islam. The Irish constitution guarantees all Irish citizens the freedom of conscience and Muslims must exercise this right when voting on 22nd May 2015.”[45]

A petition initiated by a number of religious groups including the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, the Irish Council of Imams, and the Galway branch of the Reformed Presbyterian Church on 15 April called for a “conscience clause”, which would allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples in the provision of goods and services. In response, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said: “The Government has made its decision very clear here in respect to the question that the people will be asked on the 22nd of May. That question of course is to give their approval, if they see fit and I hope they do, to allow for marriage in civil law irrespective of sexual orientation.” Brendan Howlin said “The one issue at the core of this referendum is equality under the Constitution and anything else is extraneous.”[46]

However, some religious-affiliated groups were in favour of the referendum. In January 2015, the Church of Ireland LGBT group Changing Attitude Ireland welcomed the publication of the wording of the Marriage Equality Referendum. Dr Richard OLeary, the organisation’s chair, said that marriage should be “available to couples without distinction as to their sex”, just as civil marriage “may be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their race or religion”.[42] On 7 May, at a Changing Attitude Ireland event, former Archdeacon of Dublin, Gordon Linney said “We are being given an opportunity on May 22 finally to show the gay community that we value them for who they are. We welcome them as they are fully into society and so give them the recognition they are entitled to and that those who are in stable relationships and wish to marry should be allowed to do so. Marriage is a civil contract. No church will be forced to solemnise any union it does not approve of.”[47]

Many business groups advocated for the passing of the referendum. On 16 April, Business for Yes Equality launched, with high-profile companies such as Twitter, eBay, PayPal and 150 Irish-based international and local companies joining.[48][49] Stephen McIntyre, MD of Twitter in Ireland, said “As I see it, this case has three key elements. First, people perform better in the long run when they can be themselves. Second, talent is attracted to organisations which demonstrate an appreciation for diversity, inclusiveness and equality. Finally, Irelands international reputation as a good place to do business will be enhanced by a Yes vote.”[50] Martin Shanahan, the head of IDA Ireland, the Industrial Development Authority, called for a Yes vote on 1 May, saying “A Yes vote on May 22 would tell the business world that Ireland is open, inclusive and welcomes diversity and that would be a very positive message to be sending internationally.”[51] He also said he believed that a No vote would send a negative signal to international businesses.[52]

Also on 1 May, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions announced its support for the Yes campaign with the launch of its “Trade unions for civil marriage equality” campaign.[53] Other trade unions and staff representative associations supporting a Yes vote included the Garda Representative Association, Mandate, and Ireland’s largest trade union SIPTU.[54][55][56]

On 7 May, eBay CEO John Donahoe announced that the company was backing a Yes vote. Donahoe said that its position on equality issues such as same-sex marriage, in addition to being “the right thing to do”, also helps the company attract, retain and develop the right people.[57]

Other prominent groups to support the referendum included a coalition of Ireland’s main children’s charities called “BeLonG To Yes”. Constituent organisations include the ISPCC, Barnardo’s, Forige, Youth Work Ireland, the Migrant Rights Centre, Headstrong, Yes Equality, the Children’s Rights Alliance, Pavee Point, EPIC and the National Youth Council of Ireland. Speaking at the launch, Fergus Finlay said they had come together to call for a Yes vote in part because groups within the No campaign were “using children as pawns” and that every time he saw a poster calling for a No vote because “every child deserves a mother and father”, he saw “a sickening insult to the thousands of lone parents and children who love and care for each other in Ireland. The message is exploitative, hurtful and dishonest. What every child deserves is love, respect, safety. That can come from two parents of either sex, two parents of the same-sex, or a single parent.”[58][59] The Union of Students in Ireland, then led by Laura Harmon, launched its “Students for Marriage Equality” campaign in January together with its dedicated website, voteforlove.ie.[60]

Amnesty International launched their “Let’s Make History”[61] campaign for marriage equality on 22 March 2015 to thousands of people outside the historic General Post Office, Dublin.[62] Speakers included Colm O’Gorman, Pat Carey, Sabina Brennan, Gavin Brennan and Grace Dyas.

On 5 May, the “Yes for Health” campaign was launched by Liam Doran, general secretary of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation and Kieran Ryan, CEO of the Irish College of General Practitioners. Speaking at the launch, Minister for Health Leo Varadkar said that a No vote would be a “big step backwards” for the country, and that it would have an adverse effect on the mental health of members of the LGBT community.[63] The following day, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and launched their ‘Yes’ campaign. The launch was attended by representatives of various groups, including the Irish Feminist Network, Digi Women and the Association of Childcare Professionals.[64] On 7 May, the Law Society of Ireland announced its support for a Yes vote. Ken Murphy, the society’s Director General, said that the society was taking a public stance because marriage equality was an issue of fundamental human rights. The decision followed a report from the society’s human rights committee, which found that there were 160 ways in which civil partnership, compared to civil marriage, was the lesser of the two unions.[65]

Some groups were also formed in opposition to the referendum. On 18 April, Mothers and Fathers Matter, formed in 2014 to oppose the Children and Family Relationships Bill, launched its No campaign.[66][67] First Families First, a group of three people headed by children’s and disabilities campaigner Kathy Sinnott, and fathers rights campaigner John Waters launched its campaign for a No vote on 1 May.[68] On 7 May, a group called StandUp4Marriage launched. Its founder, Senator Jim Walsh said the launch was sparsely attended because people who want to vote no are afraid to speak out.[47]

The following organisations registered as “approved bodies” to monitor postal voting and vote counting: Comhar Crosta, Marriage Equality, Yes Equality Cork, Green Party, Mothers & Fathers Matter, Fianna Fil, Labour Party, BeLonG to Youth Services, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, GLEN Campaign for Marriage, National LGBT Federation, Sinn Fin, and Fine Gael.[69][70][71]

Broadcasters are legally required to cover referendum campaigns in a balanced manner. Several complaints were made to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) that programmes and presenters had unfairly favoured the Yes side. The BAI rejected these in its October 2015 report.[72][73]

A 2014 poll showed that support was strongest among younger voters, and that Sinn Fin and Labour voters were somewhat more in favour than Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.[91][84][89]

Counting began at 09:00 IST on 23 May (08:00 UTC). Early tallies quickly began to indicate a victory for the Yes campaign, with Minister of State Aodhn Rordin declaring a “landslide” victory across Dublin only 8 minutes into counting.[95] Key figures in the No campaign, including David Quinn began conceding defeat as early as 10:00, long ahead of any constituencies declaring their final count.[96]

Urban regions generally recorded higher approval ratings for the change. The highest Yes percentages were recorded in the Dublin Region with the all of the top ten by Yes vote percentage being in the region (with a total yes vote of 71% for the region), and all of the top 15 located in the Greater Dublin Area. Cork’s urban constituencies also ranked above the national average, as did Limerick city. Although the Donegal constituencies had been expected to return a No vote,[97] and indeed, of all constituencies reporting a majority Yes vote, the lowest margin was recorded in Donegal South-West where a Yes vote was carried by a margin of only 33 votes RoscommonSouth Leitrim was the only constituency to return a majority No vote.

The national results were as follows:[98]

Dublin Castle, where the result of referendum was officially announced, was opened to the public for the duration of the count, with numbers limited to 2,000 at any one time. A carnival atmosphere prevailed all day after early count tallies indicated that the result would be a Yes. Celebrations and street parties took place at many venues in cities around Ireland, with Dublin celebrations centred between gay venues Pantibar and The George, and Dublin Castle.[101]

Taoiseach Enda Kenny said “With today’s Yes vote we have disclosed who we are a generous, compassionate, bold and joyful people. The referendum was about inclusiveness and equality, about love and commitment being enshrined in the constitution. The people have spoken. They have said yes. Ireland thank you.”[102]

Tnaiste Joan Burton described Ireland as a “rainbow nation” and said “In Ireland, we are known as a nation of storytellers and today, the people have told quite some story. Together, the people of Ireland have struck a massive blow against discrimination as we extend the right of marriage to all our citizens.” Leo Varadkar, Minister for Health and Ireland’s first openly gay cabinet minister, said “It is a historic day for Ireland. We are the first country in the world to enshrine marriage equality in our constitution and to do it through popular mandate. That makes us a beacon of equality and liberty to the rest of the world, so it’s a very proud day for the Irish people.”[102]

Michel Martin, Fianna Fil leader and Leader of the Opposition, who supported the amendment, said “there is something in the DNA of Irish people that reacts to inequality”, adding “It is something that Irish people do not accept historically and I believe this ballot is a vote in favour of a more inclusive, equal and just society.”[103] However, Senator Averil Power resigned from Fianna Fil after the referendum, alleging that many of its TDs and Senators had refused to canvass or leaflet for a Yes vote, and that its low profile in the Yes campaign was “cynical and cowardly”.[104][105]

The leader of Sinn Fin, Gerry Adams, said “We have a new era of equality and that is a good day for Ireland.”[102]

Veteran gay and civil rights campaigner, Senator David Norris, who was one of the key figures in having homosexuality decriminalised, said “I think it’s wonderful. It’s a little bit late for me. As I said the other day, Ive spent so much time pushing the boat out that I forgot to jump on and now it’s out beyond the harbour on the high seas, but it’s very nice to look at.”[106]

Katherine Zappone, the first openly lesbian member of the Oireachtas, proposed remarrying her wife on air.[107]

Diarmuid Martin, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin told RT that the church needed a “reality check.” He said “I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution.” He added “I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I’m saying there’s a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church”.[108]

The Church of Ireland issued a statement indicating that it “defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and the result of this referendum does not alter this.” The Archbishops and bishops also called for “a spirit of public generosity, both from those for whom the result of the referendum represents triumph, and from those for whom it signifies disaster”.[109][110]

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland said it was “deeply disappointed and saddened that the Constitution will no longer reflect the historic and Christian view of marriage that it is exclusively between one man and one woman.”[111]

Under the Referendum Act 1994, the returning officer issued a provisional certificate of the referendum result to the Master of the High Court and published a notice in Iris Oifigiil, the official gazette.[1][128][129] Citizens have seven days in which to lodge a petition challenging the result.[130][129] If no petition is upheld, the provisional certificate is certified as final by the Master of the High Court and the bill is sent to the President of Ireland to be signed into law, thereby amending the constitution.[131][129] Two petitions against the marriage referendum were rejected in the High Court in June and the Court of Appeal in July, after which the bill was signed by President Michael D. Higgins on 29 August 2015.[8][132]

The provisional referendum certificate was issued on 25 May 2015 and published the following day in Iris Oifigiil.[1] Two separate petitions challenging the certificate were lodged within the time limit and considered in the High Court on 5 June 2015.[133] The petitioners, Gerry Walshe and Maurice J. Lyons, were lay litigants.[134] Walsh argued that political parties receiving state funding should have been prohibited from campaigning; that copies of the amendment should have been available at post offices; and that the secrecy of the ballot was compromised by serial numbers on ballot papers and CCTV cameras in some polling stations.[134][135] Lyons argued that the amendment is too vaguely worded and incompatible with the constitution’s Christian ethos and reference to “woman … in the home”; and also that non-voters should have been counted as no-voters.[136][137] Nicholas Kearns, President of the High Court, dismissed both applications and awarded costs against the petitioners.[138][136][139] Walshe and Lyons appealed the decisions, and on 29 June the Court of Appeal scheduled hearings for 30 July.[140][141][142][143] On 30 July the court upheld the dismissals and the costs awards against both petitioners.[7][144] The remaining steps were as prescribed by the Referendum Act 1994: on 24 August the High Court’s Master formally notified the referendum returning officer Rona N Fhlanghaile that it had not accepted any petition;[145] on 28 August N Fhlanghaile sent the final referendum certificate to the Taoiseach and President;[146] on 29 August the President signing the amendment into law.[147][148][132][149]

Meanwhile, on 27 August, both Walshe and Lyons applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, although neither sought a stay on the Master or returning officer’s actions, and their applications did not prevent the bill being signed into law.[147][150] On 16 September, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, stating neither applicant had raised any points of substance.[151][152] The Supreme Court criticised the decision to finalise the referendum certificate before it had made its decision;[153] however, the High Court on 23 September rejected a claim by Walshe that the certificate was therefore invalid.[148][154] The President’s office and the Department of the Environment also stated they had acted in accordance with the law.[132][155] The Master of the High Court said the problem arose because the Referendum Act 1994 did not take account of the Court of Appeal, created in 2014 under the Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution.[147][155] Lecturer Conor O’Mahony suggested the Master, though not obliged to wait for a Supreme Court appeal, might better have chosen to do so.[155] The Supreme Court suggested that the applicants’ failure to request a stay on the Court of Appeal decision pending request for a Supreme Court Appeal was a consequence of their being lay litigants, and that a professional lawyer would not have made such an omission.[156]

In March 2015, the Department of Justice published the general scheme of the Marriage Bill 2015, setting out the changes to be made to marriage law if the proposed amendment was enacted. These include removing the current legislative bar on same-sex couples marrying,[157] allowing foreign same-sex marriages to be registered in Ireland as marriages rather than as civil partnerships,[158] and dissolving a civil partnership if the partners marry each other.[159] Authorised solemnisers of marriage from religious groups would be allowed to refuse to officiate at same-sex ceremonies.[160][161] Lawyer Benedict Floinn felt the bill’s drafting should have been completed before the referendum, to minimise the lacuna during which statute law is out of step with the constitution.[162] The Gender Recognition Act 2015 requires a transgender person to be unmarried to recognise a change of legal sex;[163] the Marriage Bill intends to remove this restriction.[164][165]

The government hoped to have the Marriage Bill enacted before the Oireachtas’ summer adjournment, but the referendum petition hearings in the Court of Appeal delayed this.[140][141][166] The government intended to enact the Marriage Bill “as early as possible” after the Dil’s resumption on 22 September 2015.[167] The bill provides that applications for civil partnership pending when it comes into force can be converted into applications for marriage.[168][167][169] The Minister for Justice stated that marriages under this provision should take place by November.[169][170] The bill was approved at a cabinet meeting on 16 September for publication the following day.[171] It passed its final stage in the legislature on 22 October 2015[172] and (in the absence of the President, who was out of the country) was signed into law on 29 October 2015 by the Presidential Commission.[173]

The Marriage Act 2015 came into force on 16 November 2015.[174] The first same-sex marriage ceremony was the next day in Clonmel, County Tipperary.[175]

Go here to read the rest:

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland …

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonablein the eyes of the law,is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure.Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search;Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)If the search is incident to a lawful arrest;United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances;Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)If the items are in plain view;Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions.Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984),United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).

The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion.Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion.Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches.United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving.Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway.Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

See original here:

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

See original here:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment

ABA Journal Web 100, Best Law Blogs (2017); ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2015-16)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-18,online since Feb. 24, 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit EleventhCircuit D.C. CircuitFederal CircuitForeign Intell.Surv.Ct.FDsys, many district courts, other federal courtsMilitary Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General’s site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Oyez Project (NWU) “On the Docket”Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com’t’ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: –Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

“If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn’t, and they don’t.” Me

I am still learning.Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500’s)).

“Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government.” Shemaya, in the Thalmud

“A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one’s attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced.” Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev’d Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

“The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

“Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment.”Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

“There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.” Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

“The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth.” Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

“A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

“For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. … But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

“You can’t always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need.” Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

“In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up.” Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!—Pep Le Pew

Website design by Wally Waller, Little Rock

Read more:

Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

Go here to read the rest:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment Activities | United States Courts

Apply landmark Supreme Court cases to contemporary scenarios related to search and seizure issues at your school, in your car, and your home.

“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.”Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Brendlin v. CaliforniaPassengers, police stops, and protection from unreasonable seizure

New Jersey v. T.L.O.Purse search at school and protection from unreasonable searches

See more here:

Fourth Amendment Activities | United States Courts

Fourth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal …

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.

See more here:

Fourth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal …

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonablein the eyes of the law,is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure.Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search;Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)If the search is incident to a lawful arrest;United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances;Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)If the items are in plain view;Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions.Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984),United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).

The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion.Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion.Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches.United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving.Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway.Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

Read the original post:

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

Read this article:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Fourth Amendment

ABA Journal Web 100, Best Law Blogs (2017); ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2015-16)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-18,online since Feb. 24, 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit EleventhCircuit D.C. CircuitFederal CircuitForeign Intell.Surv.Ct.FDsys, many district courts, other federal courtsMilitary Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General’s site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Oyez Project (NWU) “On the Docket”Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com’t’ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: –Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

“If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn’t, and they don’t.” Me

I am still learning.Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500’s)).

“Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government.” Shemaya, in the Thalmud

“A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one’s attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced.” Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev’d Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

“The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

“Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment.”Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

“There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.” Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

“The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth.” Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

“A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

“For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. … But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

“You can’t always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need.” Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

“In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up.” Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!—Pep Le Pew

Website design by Wally Waller, Little Rock

See the original post:

Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment – Kids | Laws.com

A Guide to the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment, or Amendment IV of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that protects people from being searched or having their things taken away from them without any good reason. If the government or any law enforcement official wants to do that, he or she must have a very good reason to do that and must get permission to perform the search from a judge. The fourth amendment was introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a part of the Bill of Rights on September 5, 1789 and was ratified or voted four by three fourths of the states on December 15, 1791.

The Text of the Fourth Amendment

The text of the Fourth Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:

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.

History of the Third Amendment

In Colonial America, laws were written in order to help the English earn money on customs. The justices of the peace would do this by writing general warrants, which allowed general search and seizure to happen. Massachusetts wrote a law in 1756 that banned these warrants, because tax collectors were abusing their powers by searching the colonists homes for illegal goods. These general warrants allowed any messenger or officer to search a suspected place without any evidence. It also allowed them to seize people without even saying what they did wrong or showing evidence of their wrongdoings. Virginia also banned the use of general warrants later due to other fears. These actions later led to the addition of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Amendment Today

Today, the Fourth Amendment means that in order for a police officer to search and arrest someone, he or she will need to get permission or a warrant to do so from a judge. In order to get a warrant, the police officer must have evidence or probable cause that supports it. The police officer, or whoever has the evidence, must swear that it is true to his or her knowledge.

Facts About the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment applies to the government, but not any searches done by organizations or people who are not doing it for the government.

Some searches can be done without a warrant without breaking the law, like when there is a good reason to think that a crime is happening.

comments

Go here to see the original:

Fourth Amendment – Kids | Laws.com

Judge Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment – SCOTUSblog

Orin S. Kerr is the Frances R. and John J. Duggan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

Judge Brett Kavanaughs views of the Fourth Amendment have drawn significant interest following his recent nomination to the Supreme Court. This post takes a close look at Kavanaughs key Fourth Amendment opinions. It does so with an eye to guessing how he might rule in search and seizure cases if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a large Fourth Amendment docket. How might a Justice Kavanaugh approach those cases?

My analysis is tentative for two reasons. The first is probably obvious. Circuit judges are supposed to follow Supreme Court and circuit precedent, while Supreme Court justices have much more room to roam. Given that, translation is hard. You never know how much of a circuit judges rulings simply reflect a lower court judges commitment to stare decisis.

A second reason for caution is that Kavanaughs Fourth Amendment record is modest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit doesnt get many search and seizure cases. A Westlaw search revealed around 35 cases in the subject area in which Kavanaugh sat on the panel or considered a rehearing petition en banc. Most of those were unanimous and pretty easy. I found only five Fourth Amendment decisions, and one recent speech, that I think might reveal something significant about his approach.

With those two important caveats, heres my overall sense of things. In tough Fourth Amendment cases that divide the Supreme Court, a Justice Kavanaugh would likely be on the governments side. He is wary of novel theories that would expand Fourth Amendment protection. And he often sees the Fourth Amendments requirement of reasonableness as giving the government significant latitude. If we had to associate Kavanaugh with a familiar justice, the limited evidence suggests that his approach in Fourth Amendment cases is probably somewhere in the ballpark of Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Ill now run through the five key cases, and Kavanaughs recent speech, to explain why I think thats the case.

1. The balancing cases: Askew and Vilsack

The first two cases to consider involve balancing of government and privacy interests. In both cases, the majority held that the government practice violated the Fourth Amendment. Kavanaugh dissented, largely on the ground that he would have balanced the interests differently and therefore would have ruled for the government. In a close case that requires balancing of interests, the cases suggest, Kavanaugh is more likely to approach the case from the governments perspective than from the individuals perspective.

The first case is United States v. Askew, a stop-and-frisk case. The police stopped the suspect based on suspicion that he had just committed an armed robbery. After an initial frisk for weapons came up empty, an officer unzipped the suspects outer jacket to see if his clothing matched eyewitness descriptions of what the robber was wearing. It turned out the initial frisk had been poorly done: Unzipping the jacket revealed a gun in Askews waist pouch. Remarkably, the D.C. Circuit went en banc and divided sharply over whether the outer-jacket unzipping was allowed. As I joked at the time, the D.C. Circuits 85 pages of serious constitutional analysis, spread over three opinions, was the latest in zipper jurisprudence.

Askew is factually messy and a bit hard to summarize, but the most significant legal issue was whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police to move a suspects clothing to facilitate an eyewitness identification during a stop that is otherwise valid under the Supreme Courts 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio. There was no obvious answer from Supreme Court caselaw. The en banc D.C. Circuit did not reach a majority view on the issue, although five of its 11 judges, Judges Harry Edwards, Judith Rogers, David Tatel, Janice Brown and Thomas Griffith, argued that identification searches were not permitted. Kavanaugh wrote a 32-page dissent, joined by then-Chief Judge David Sentelle and Judges Karen Henderson and Raymond Randolph, that argued that the unzipping to help identification should be allowed. In his view, the reasonableness framework that applies to Terry stops generally also permits reasonable identification procedures.

The most interesting passage in the dissent is probably Kavanaughs policy argument. Prohibiting the police during Terry stops from conducting identification procedures that constitute searches, he argued, would lead to absurd and dangerous results. For example, imagine that the police detained a suspect in a rape case and the victim claimed that the suspect had a distinctive tattoo on his forearm. If the police detained the suspect on reasonable suspicion of having committed the crime, Kavanaugh argued, the police should be allowed to pull up the suspects sleeve to see if he has the tattoo the victim claims. Not allowing limited moving of clothing to identify suspects would hamstring the police and prevent them from performing reasonable identification procedures that could solve serious crimes and protect the community from violent criminals at large.

You can see a similar focus on public safety in National Federation of Federal Employees v. Vilsack, a case about whether the Fourth Amendment permitted random drug testing for Forest Service Job Corps Center employees. The employees ran a residential job corps program at public schools for at-risk students aged 16 to 24. Under the Supreme Courts caselaw, resolving the constitutionality of the program required weighing the non-law-enforcement public-safety interest advanced by the drug testing against the degree of privacy invasion it caused. Rogers, joined by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, held that the program violated the Fourth Amendment under this test because it was a solution in search of a problem. There was insufficient evidence that a drug problem existed among the staff to justify testing, they reasoned. In addition, testing every employee was too broad because different employees served in different capacities.

Kavanaugh dissented. In his view, the drug-testing program was clearly reasonable. Indeed, he wrote, it would seem negligent not to test the employees for drugs. Many of the at-risk students had a history of drug problems. To maintain discipline, Kavanaugh argued, it was important that employees who ran the program were drug-free themselves and were not potential sources of illegal drugs for the students. As a result, the government had a strong and indeed compelling interest in maintaining a drug-free workforce at these specialized residential schools for at-risk youth. On the flip side, the privacy invasion was modest. The testing only required providing a urine sample, and it only revealed the presence of certain illegal drugs.

2. The flagging-for-SCOTUS cases: Wesby and Maynard

The next two cases show Kavanaugh writing on the Fourth Amendment in dissents from denial of rehearing en banc. In both cases, the original panel reached a surprising holding that the government had violated the Fourth Amendment. In both cases, Kavanaugh dissented from the full circuits refusal to review the outlier panel opinion. And in both cases, the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari and handed down a majority opinion that largely echoed Kavanaughs reasoning. I think of these cases as the flagging for SCOTUS cases because its possible that Kavanaughs dissents were written to flag the cases for the justices. And whether or not Kavanaugh intended it, his dissents appear to have done just that.

The first case is along these lines is Wesby v. District of Columbia, which involved trespass arrests at a loud party held in a vacant house. When the police arrived, and the people in the house had trouble identifying whose house it was, the police arrested everyone for trespass. The group sued the officers under the Fourth Amendment. In an opinion by Judge Cornelia Pillard, the D.C. Circuit somewhat remarkably held that the arrests violated the Fourth Amendment and that qualified immunity did not apply. Kavanaugh penned a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc that was joined by Henderson, Brown and Griffith.

Although Kavanaughs dissent mentioned the Fourth Amendment merits in passing, it focused primarily on qualified immunity. In Kavanaughs view, qualified immunity plainly barred the suit. Both the facts and the law created lots of room for a reasonable officer to believe the arrests were based on probable cause. To be sure, he added, I do not dismiss the irritation and anguish, as well as the reputational and economic harm, that can come from being arrested. Police officers should never lightly take that step, and the courts should not hesitate to impose liability when officers act unreasonably in light of clearly established law. But that is not what happened here, not by a long shot. The Supreme Court granted cert and reversed unanimously, ruling that probable cause existed (a view held by seven justices) and holding that in any event qualified immunity applied much as Kavanaugh had argued (a position taken by all nine justices).

A roughly similar dynamic occurred with Kavanaughs dissent from denial of rehearing in United States v. Maynard, later reviewed by the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. Investigators placed a GPS device on the suspects car and tracked its location for 28 days. In an astonishing opinion for the D.C. Circuit, Ginsburg created the mosaic theory by which the monitoring was not a search at first but over time became a search because the government collected a search-like amount of information. The en banc D.C. Circuit denied the petition for rehearing 5-4. Kavanaugh joined Sentelles dissent from denial of rehearing, which argued that the panel opinion was inconsistent with Supreme Court and other circuits precedents and deserved en banc review.

The most interesting part of Kavanaughs approach to Maynard is that he wrote a brief separate dissent that flagged an alternative ground for ruling that a search occurred. Maybe it was the installation of the GPS that was a search, Kavanaugh suggested, rather than its use. Fourth Amendment caselaw before Katz v. United States had held that physical intrusion onto property was a search. If that caselaw was still valid and I see no indication that it is not, Kavanaugh added then installing the GPS device could be a search because it was an unauthorized physical encroachment on to the property of the suspects car. I do not yet know whether I agree with that conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote, but it is an important and close question deserving en banc review. When the government petitioned for certiorari, the lawyers for the defense added Kavanaughs theory as a second question presented in their brief in opposition.

The Supreme Court took up Kavanaughs suggestion. The justices granted certiorari under the name United States v. Jones on the Fourth Amendment implications of both installing the GPS device and its use. The majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia essentially adopted Kavanaughs approach. Installing a GPS was deemed a search because the installation trespassed on to the car. Jones sharply changed Fourth Amendment blackletter law by recognizing two different ways of establishing a search: the Katz test and the pre-Katz trespass test that Kavanaugh had proposed. To be sure, Kavanaughs view didnt come from nowhere. There had been something of a split on the question, and I agreed at the time that this should be the big question. But Kavanaugh was the one who best articulated the theory and teed it up for the justices.

3. The Section 215 opinion in Klayman

The last Kavanaugh opinion to consider is the one that has drawn the most attention. In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Richard Leon had ruled for the district court that the National Security Agencys Section 215 call-records program violated the Fourth Amendment. Under the program, the NSA was getting the numbers dialed (but not the contents) for millions of Americans phone calls. Leon ruled that the program was unconstitutional but then stayed any remedy while the appeal was pending. The D.C. Circuit sent the case back to the district court on procedural grounds. With the Section 215 program about to expire, Leon quickly handed down a new decision that the program was unlawful and refused to grant a stay. The next day, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay; plaintiff Larry Klayman then sought an emergency petition for rehearing en banc, which the full court denied.

Kavanaugh filed a two-page solo concurrence in the denial of rehearing. In his view, the Section 215 program was entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. That was true for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court had held that collecting telephony metadata was not a search in Smith v. Maryland. Smith settled the Section 215 question, in Kavanaughs view: That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis. Second, even if a future court adopted a different a view of what is a search, the Section 215 program was still reasonable under the balancing of interests of the special needs exception (see the discussion of Vilsack above). [T]elephony metadata serves a critically important special need preventing terrorist attacks on the United States, Kavanaugh wrote, citing the 2004 9/11 Commission Report. [T]hat critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.

What to make of Kavanaughs Klayman concurrence? On one hand, his view that the program satisfied the Fourth Amendment under Smith was doctrinally correct, in my view, at least before Carpenter v. United States last month. Its surprising that Kavanaugh didnt develop the Smith argument more. He gave the whole point only two sentences. But the argument was sound, and it matched what several district courts had said at that point (one example being the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in 2013 in United States v. Moalin).

On the other hand, Im less persuaded by Kavanaughs argument that Section 215 would fit the special-needs exception if call-records collection is a search. I would think the question is how much the program actually advances the interest in preventing terrorist attacks, not just the importance of its goal in the abstract. But note the echo of Kavanaughs Vilsack dissent. In both cases, Kavanaugh applied the special-needs exception in ways that construed the government interests as very weighty and the privacy interests as comparatively light.

4. Like Rehnquist, or perhaps like Kennedy?

A final data point for Kavanaughs Fourth Amendment views is his recent speech on Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Kavanaugh celebrates Rehnquist as Kavanaughs first judicial hero. As a law student, [i]n class after class, Kavanaugh found that he stood with Rehnquist. Kavanaugh is quick to say that he doesnt agree with every Rehnquist opinion. But in the course of a rather glowing overview of Rehnquists impact as a justice one that Kavanaugh describes as a labor of love to deliver Kavanaugh describes how Rehnquist led the charge in rebalancing Fourth Amendment law after the Warren Courts criminal-procedure revolution had expanded the rights of criminal defendants.

Kavanaugh mentions three areas in particular. First, Rehnquist wrote opinions making the probable cause standard more flexible and commonsensical. Second, Rehnquist wrote decisions expanding the category of special needs searches, which is a particularly interesting reference in light of Kavanaughs separate opinions in Vilsack and Klayman. Finally, Rehnquist opposed the exclusionary rule as a judge-created rule that was beyond the four corners of the Fourth Amendments text and imposed tremendous costs on society. Although Rehnquist did not succeed in having the exclusionary rule overturned, he dramatically changed the law of the exclusionary rule over time through the good-faith exception and other doctrines.

One takeaway from Kavanaughs speech is that his Fourth Amendment views probably arent too far from Rehnquists. Rehnquist was a pretty reliable voice for law enforcement interests in Fourth Amendment cases. The affinity may be revealing.

With that said, its also worth noting that Rehnquists views in Fourth Amendment cases also werent too far from that of Kennedy, the justice for whom Kavanaugh clerked and whose place Kavanaugh has been nominated to fill. Like Rehnquist, Kennedy tended to take a law-enforcement-oriented view in Fourth Amendment cases. You might say that Kennedys views of the Fourth Amendment were Rehnquist-like but without the broader agenda of rebalancing the rules after the Warren court.

If so, perhaps Kavanaughs views are better described as Kennedy-esque than Rehnquist-like. Like Kennedy, Kavanaugh seems to take government interests very seriously. At the same time, Kavanaughs opinions dont seem to reflect a broader agenda. Recall Kavanaughs Maynard concurrence in particular. Although Kavanaugh was unpersuaded by the panel opinions novel theory, he wrote separately to provide an alternative basis for concluding that the GPS installation was a search.

Posted in Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence, Featured

Recommended Citation: Orin Kerr, Judge Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 20, 2018, 6:16 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-on-the-fourth-amendment/

See original here:

Judge Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment – SCOTUSblog


12345...1020...