DHS Secretary doesn’t understand the 4th Amendment

I’ve covered this before but, again, the DHS Secretary is wrong. Jeh Johnson claims during the 2015 RSA security conference that law enforcement needs access to encrypted data for public safety reasons, but he fails to consider that the Bill of Rights addresses this issue already. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” Courts have also ruled that this includes a variety of electronic communications. Back in 2009 Missouri also passed a Constitutional amendment to affirm the electronic right to privacy.

Why should the government be given basically unrestricted access to our personal belongings? The 4th Amendment already permits the issuance of warrants for searching ones belongings, but it seems DHS wants to eliminate that step. If communication is encrypted then it is up to the government to find another way. That is the nature of how our government is supposed to work. We should not be required to give up our privacy. Benjamin Franklin once made a statement along the lines of “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” I would argue that without knowing the future, this is the exact type of situation Franklin was referring to.

(h/t The Blaze)

How does arguing in favor of something constitute probable cause?

As most things I post here, this is ridiculous. This article from The Blaze describes a situation where police were issued a warrant to search a woman’s house on the basis that her son argued in support of marijuana during a school event. The school then called child protection services and the police were included. Prior to receiving the warrant the officers would not allow the woman to enter her own house, which I understand and do not disagree with in general, but this is an example where a warrant should have never been issued. Yes, the woman had cannabis oil in the house, but that should be inadmissible because that search warrant should not have been issued in the first place.

My chief complaint about this whole ordeal revolves around that warrant and how “probable cause” was obtained. It was not because she had been caught buying the cannabis oil. From the article it was purely based on her sons pro-marijuana argument at school. Obviously we do not know whether or not he said there was items in their house, but that still shouldn’t matter because that was the *only* thing they had against her. Courts that actually follow the Constitution and laws would not have considered that to be enough.