Warrantless Searches In Washington DC Area Quietly Approved With Only 5 NO Votes

W

WhatInThe

SF VIP
A bill, House Joint Resolution 76 which covers a Washington DC area public transportation authority and will allow for warrantless searches of 'premises adjacent to' it's rail lines was quietly approved with only 5 NO votes.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/congress-passes-bill-allowing-homes-searched-without-warrant/

The authority will also have jurisdiction in 3 states or districts including Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia.
 

People own private property and businesses next to rail lines all over the country. Supposedly an executive has to give permission. Another question is what does 'adjacent' cover. The first property next to the rail lines, anything with in sight, parked cars on public streets, people walking next to?
 

WhatInThe said:
People own private property and businesses next to rail lines all over the country. Supposedly an executive has to give permission. Another question is what does 'adjacent' cover. The first property next to the rail lines, anything with in sight, parked cars on public streets, people walking next to?
Click to expand...

Looks like it applies only to property, not people.

Wonder if anyone has challenged the law's constitutionality?
 
Butterfly said:
Looks like it applies only to property, not people.

Wonder if anyone has challenged the law's constitutionality?
Click to expand...

This is what it states in the Constitution.

This clearly goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights “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.”

But upon probable cause. ? It seems to me you can challenge the search on that basis after it happens but it can't stop the search because the interpretation of 'probable cause' covers a lot of ground.

If they have intelligence that states one of the houses are making bombs, then that's probable cause isn't it?
 
Camper6 said:
This is what it states in the Constitution.

This clearly goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights “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.”

But upon probable cause. ? It seems to me you can challenge the search on that basis after it happens but it can't stop the search because the interpretation of 'probable cause' covers a lot of ground.

If they have intelligence that states one of the houses are making bombs, then that's probable cause isn't it?
Click to expand...
The definition of "unreasonable searches" changes with the situation... like trying to board an airplane in 1970 versus 2017.
 
Washington, DC, being only a "district," does not have the rights that states have.

Washington, DC, has tried to become a state, for many reasons, but always fails, like Puerto Rico, which the US annexed only to steal men for WWI.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top