If you think you are free

I get what you're saying but not living under total anarchy doesn't mean you're not free. For example you are free to move to a much freer nation. Things like taxes and fines and permits are the price of admission into a modern civilized society. It's not about restrictions on freedom. Meanwhile, in countries very unlike the ones you've listed, people are put to death for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation. That's not being free. It upsets me when people who are 90% free are complaining that they aren't free while there are people in this world with literally 0% freedom

 

CPS has done more harm to children since their founding than pedophiles in the same timespan

 

What happened to all the rhetoric about upholding the constitution? No one and I mean no one has done more illegal and unethical actions in a modern administration than Trump and his followers. The conservative echo chamber can’t get past ugly rantings about such topics as Hillary Clinton and Biden. In terms of refuse, the combined misdeeds of Clinton and Biden are but a grain of sand; Trump and the R misdeeds amount to a mountain range of camel dung drifting across the Sahara. Where is the outrage? The CPS claim is unsubstantiated and the reference supplied is just plane propaganda.

 

The so-called "castle doctrine" (your home is your castle) can't be used to resist a valid search warrant issued by a court. The facts you've presented involve what is known as the "administrative search" exception to the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The lead U.S. Supreme Court cases are Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) and See v. City of Seattle (1967) in which the Court held that a warrant from a court is the norm for an administrative inspection, but instead of the stringent requirements of probable cause that a violation has been committed, the administrative warrant can be issued on the basis of a "flexible standard of reasonableness", weighing the need and purpose of the inspection (e.g., public health and safety) versus the degree of intrusion. What kinds of things might an inspector legitimately be looking for? Fire hazards, roach infestations, rats, etc.https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/health/when-hoarding-morphs-into-a-safety-hazard.htmlThe case that you outline involves a state constitution that's more stringent than the federal one, in setting a higher standard of proof for the administrative warrant. Generally speaking, the common law law of public nuisance and the "police power" of the state to protect the "health, safety, welfare and morals" of the community provide authority for regulation of conditions even inside one's "castle". But the basis for the inspection must be reviewed by a court to make sure the privacy rights of the home owner or renter aren't being unduly infringed. Using the inspection as a pretext to snoop around in somebody's house would be a Fourth Amendment violation, if you can convince a court that the limited scope of the inspection had been exceeded.Pretextual Administrative Searches – A Fourth Amendment Violation - The Law Firm of Robert J. Frank & Associates, LLC
https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu.../&httpsredir=1&article=2675&context=lawreview
Searches and Seizures – Administrative Laws
Administrative Inspections

 

You might want to look up your country's freedom of speech laws.

Each country is different

 

Under Shapiro the government can now search your private paper records, regardless of the Fourth Amendment protections. Under Taylor-Sysco they can force you to create a log record (trucker's daily log) to be used against you, regardless of Fourth Amendment Protections. Many parts of the Bill Of Rights were ruined and reduced by John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration immediately after the 911 terror attacks. That's when we got the expanded government powers as envisioned in The Project For A New American Century. The America I knew does not exist anymore. Today it is an authoritarian haven for rich Oligarchs.

 

I could not agree more

 

While we are on this Fourth Amendment and Search stuff, I'll tell you that America's Constitution and its Bill Of Rights called for Probable Cause to be established before a person's rights are trespassed by the government. The Courts then reduced that to Reasonable Suspicion, meaning the cops could then just say the had suspected a crime had taken place, without providing proof or supporting evidence for establishing probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant. With that change in the process to obtain a warrant, it was then much easier. That happened back when Republican Reagan was in office, along with accidental evidence, as in when a cop illegally searches your car; but finds something totally unrelated in the truck, like cash. As the rules were changed for obtaining search and no-knock warrants, cops got away with false and invalid affidavits. An example of that is when a cops put the wrong address down on the affidavit, leading to the Death of Ismael Mena who was a construction worker and father of nine children. After the Patriot Act increased government power, now we have Attorney General William Barr saying he thinks there should be Zero Tolerance for resisting police. What he means is if the cops want to stop you and search your car or search your house -without Constitutionally required Probable Cause- now they can shoot you and kill you. It's a shoot first and answer questions later scenario. In Missouri a cop shot and killed a suspected drug dealer with an AK-47 which had a hundred round drum, illegal under his own department's rules. The judge let the cop off, saying he never heard of a drug dealer who didn't have a gun. The only "evidence" gun found on the scene did not have the drug suspect's finger prints on it. The evidence gun did have the cop's finger prints on it.

 

Shapiro has been around for awhile--1948, if we're talking about Shapiro v. U.S. A crucial point about Shapiro is that it involved a records search and subpoena duces tecum--not a search of somebody's office & desk drawers but an order to show up and produce papers and records. The Court considered that less intrusive. Congress required records to be kept as a means of enforcing the Emergency Price Control Act, and the Court upheld the subpoena as a legitimate instrument for an administrative search. The Sysco case also involved "records which are required to be kept for a regulatory purpose". Records that are required to be kept for a regulatory purpose (like tax records) aren't protected by the Fourth Amendment, which protects us only from unreasonable searches and seizures. Without such powers, agencies like EPA would probably be unable to function, which could be good or bad, depending on what you think of pollution. Of course, when you're the Prez or one of his cronies in the executive branch, it seems, you're somehow immune from such process under a HUGE claim of executive privilege.

So I'd agree we're generally much less free than we were in the good old days, when there was more wide open space, less technology, and far less government regulation, we breathed polluted air, got sick and died, and we liked it. There would be benefits and drawbacks to going back.

That said, the federal government obviously has acquired vast powers over our lives which can be abused by wayward officials and depend on fair and honest judges to keep in check. My big fear at the present time is that we have a President who has no respect for the rule of law, is inclined to use the instruments of government against his enemies, has a loyal Attorney General to help him out, and is packing the courts with judges of his own persuasion. If you think you aren't free now, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

 

Very True Okie. It has been a while since I was in a university; but, I do remember these cases as Fourth Amendment -unreasonable search and seizure cases. We studied Shapiro along with the Al Capone case. There was also the Terry stop. Concerning the current power of our current chief, well; we agree again. Trump will find a way to twist and abuse the powers of his office. We need to make sure the Democrats put some new laws through to regulate the executive branch. I want to see Supreme Court restructuring to repair the damage done by McConnell.

 

You mean the facts I've presented involve what is known as the "administrative search" a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"In the case of administrative warrants, the probable cause requirement is not as strict as that required in criminal investigations because privacy interests at stake are not high. "

What they can do is make fire hazards, roach infestations and rats a crime if they want but I am not buying there dirty semantics making up terms like administrative searches to circumvent the bill of rights. No one should buy that bull for a minute.

The forth amendment was written to to keep the rats and roaches who infest government from being able to just come in your home over some bullshit when ever they feel like it.

You put alot into your post but I am tired I will put more into this next time.

 

"there are people in this world with literally 0% freedom"

And most of those people with zero freedom are in the United States.

 

So let our criminals run free? I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Also, you guys should probably get out more. See a 3rd world country or dictatorship and then tell me America isnt free

 

No, I don't mean that at all, unless you have a concept "violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures" that's at variance with the interpretations of the courts. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts decide what's unreasonable. They've upheld administrative searches pursuant to a valid search warrant issued according to a "flexible standard of reasonableness" that balances the regulatory need for the inspection against the intrusiveness of the inspection. And they've upheld demands to turn over records under a subpoena duces tecum. The courts have never given an absolutist interpretation to the Fourth Amendment, which invites judicial construction by using the term "unreasonable". If we want regulation to protect public health and the environment, inspections are necessary. Requiring a showing of violation would impede an effective regulatory program.

 

I would wager there is a close correlation between the rate of incarceration and in inequality of income distribution.

 

And that Charlatan is still fighting to keep his taxes and bank records secret from the House Ways and Means Committee.

 

That's what I've been saying. The rich guys can don anything and William Barr would not investigate or charge them. The rest of us would end up in prison for exactly the same thing Trump does. About 15 years ago I tried to get my tax reduced because of hardship. The IRS wanted every dime. Trump as I understand it hasn't paid anything since 1977 or thereabouts. The Southern District of New York prosecutors were hot on that trail, but now William Barr has taken things over to protect Trump. If you have that kind of money, you are free in America, otherwise it's starve or stay at the Iron Bar Hotel.

 

I have and I'll say America has minimal freedom.

 

i dont give a flying rip about 3rd world country that isn't my problem. Doesn't make any difference to us losing our freedoms.

 

The way how america has it's justice system is the put innocent people into jail before the court case.