good one before the police are
allowed to go ransacking a citizen's person, house, car, paperwork, and,
these days (at least until 9-11) his or her electronic life on the computer
Until the passage of the Patriot Act, the interpretation of the Fourth
Amendment since it was written has generally taken the opposite view to the
conduct of the British. Their colonial era "officials did not need to
have particularized suspicions about any person or place before searching,
nor were they required to justify their actions to any authority after the
search'" (Robinson, 2004). If interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has
erred, it generally has generally done so in favor of requiring too much
proof of probable cause, especially in regard to possible criminal
activities, not too littleâ€and certainly not none at all.'
While there have been other measures that diluted the Fourth
Amendment protections, beginning with Espionage Acts of various sorts
during the World Wars, as well as significant erosions of the concept of
probable cause' during the Cold War, some say the passage of the Patriot
Act has virtually negated the probable cause approach to Americans'
guarantee of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Considering the magnitude of the requirements of the Patriot Act, that
feeling is not without bases. "Section 215 (of the act) is a fishing
license. It can be used to obtain records of individuals or entire
organizational membership listsâ€Those served with Section 215 orders are
gagged from ever revealing that information was provided" (Pheneger, 2004,
p. 15). Nor, as was the case until the Patriot Act, is a judge even
required to weigh the probable cause' to see if, in fact, enough
indications of criminal activity are present to order violation of the
sanctity of citizenship the Constitution meant to ensure.
Pheneger n...