X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
cia,search,seizure,consitution,nsa CIA head Michael Hayden explains the fourth amendment - should his explanation concern American citizens?
Comments  playlists with this video what have we become... by bizinichi
who voted for this video Krupo
- philgross
- SnakePlissken
- joedirt
- pho3n1x
- oohahh
- gsmiley2
- digitalbombdog
- sometimes
- drforeverclear
- therealblankman
- mauz15
- Wepwawet
- lucasgreen
- grooviekenn
- bareboards
- ant
- noodle
- cardboardhut
- Gervaise
- yabooo
- Hex
- farcrafter
- joemawlma
- IntoTheOblivion
- messenger
- djsunkid
- k8_fan
- murf2073
- Andymon
- Anliz
- lucky760
- vermonter
- Notre1
- sbchapm
- Raytrace
- aidos
- bizinichi
- Argh
- siftbot
x4who has this post bookmarked Constitutional_Patriot
CIA Head Michael Hayden Explains The Fourth Amendment - Should His Explanation Concern American Citizens? Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Here's the 4th Amendment for reference:
Amendment IV
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.
This is the same group that can parse the 2nd admendment's "Right to bear arms" and somehow ignore the whole part about it being predated on the need for a "well-regulated militia". If every gun owner were required to be in a well-regulated militia (state militia, National Guard, military reserve) we'd have far fewer accidental gun deaths.
Nice.
If they are read together, then ALL searches and seizures without a warrant are illegal. And since all warrants must be issued on probable cause, all searches and seizures must be based on probable cause.
If they are read separately, then there can be some instances where searches and seizures without a warrant are ok. Whether or not those warrantless searches and seizures are ok IS a question of reasonableness like Hayden said. However, he left out the part that courts have determined that the legal standard for reasonableness is generally probable cause. So if an officer searches or seizes someone without a warrant under circumstances where he has been given the right to do so, he would generally need probable cause in order for that search or seizure to be valid and legal.
There are some scenarios where an officer can act based on a "reasonable suspicion"(a less stringent standard than probable cause) or under exigent circumstances, but those instances don't apply to the wiretapping stuff.
No. He isn't saying warrants can be issued without probable cause. Warrants MUST be based on probable cause, and he isn't saying otherwise.
He is claiming that the WARRANTLESS wire tapping constitutes legal searches and seizures because it is reasonable. Read my above post...he is interpreting the 4th Amendment's clauses separately. Hayden is wrong because he doesn't recognize that probable cause is the standard for whether a search or seizure is reasonable. So, police can act without a warrant in some cases, BUT, they need probable cause in order for that action to be reasonable. There are some very narrowly defined circumstances where an officer can act without a warrant and without probable cause, but wire tapping isn't one of them.