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.

It's self explanatory.

▲

someonebaggy an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It only self-explains what it says, not what the police actually do.

▲

b3lvedere 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They just make it a probable cause. Problem solved for them.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

hermannj314 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is not self-explanatory how to define the weasel word "unreasonable"

	▲	singleshot_ 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I defy you to go to law school with that attitude, sir

▲

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m always confused when people say this. It’s vague as heck! That one little word in there, “unreasonable,” makes it completely up for interpretation.

▲

singleshot_ a minute ago | parent | next [-]

I have some astoundingly bad news about the entire system of trial by jury...

▲

bad_haircut72 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you think this is a reasonable use of power?

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-]

Plenty will say yes. We know this.

One of the Constitution's big failings is this sort of thing; deeply vague wording. What counts as interstate commerce? What counts as reasonable? What's considered press activity? What's considered illegal speech?

If you were writing a new one today, you'd define some stuff more.

▲

bad_haircut72 an hour ago | parent [-]

Im asking you though.

	▲	ceejayoz 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, you're asking someone else; I'm just pointing out why it's a bit of a pointless ask.

▲

LadyCailin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Haha, as if the constitution matters anymore.