T.Lex... Just a thought. Consider the castling statutes. I'm really hazy but there is a distance from dwellings considered "castled". Goes back to medieval castles and motes. the mote being part of the castle. In short they just can't just stand at a window peer in without a warrant.
Tough defense but it's there.
Nope, thermal imager was ruled a search by SCOTUS back in the 90's if memory serves
[h=2]Man Stands Up For Constitution - Denies Police Access to His Home[/h]Would you do this?
Welllll... the founding fathers, for good or ill, used the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure." They did not say "free from any search or seizure." The point is that .gov is allowed to do "reasonable" search and seizures.
Only with a warrant. And the issuance of a warrant is an illegal, criminal act except in a very narrow set of specifically described circumstances ("and no warrant shall issue").
So yes, we most certainly are free from any search or seizure that is not authorized by a warrant, and issuing a warrant is considered a crime under the Fourth Amendment in most instances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[SUP][/SUP] 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
So yes, we most certainly are free from any search or seizure that is not authorized by a warrant, and issuing a warrant is considered a crime under the Fourth Amendment unless overwhelming, obvious evidence of a crime is apparent, specifically naming the individual for whom they're searching (the cops in this video didn't even know) and the exact location of the search is explicitly named (123 Maple Street, house, living room, upper shelf of closet on east wall).