did you not see this part

.......

ACLU officials described the situation as a “Catch-22” because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program.

......

it is a shell game if the ""people "" try this they would be charged with something like lieing to law enforcement officer

using some of this logic they can come to your house search it

then leave but because they found something illegal

that they did not know about

it is ok as long as they do not use the search in court

but because they found it

they start an investigation in regards to the find

and in the course of said investigation they put together

a case strong enough to convict you

which would never have been put together if not for the

illegal search

using some of this logic they can come to your house search it

then leave but because they found something illegal

that they did not know about

it is ok as long as they do not use the search in court

but because they found it

they start an investigation in regards to the find

and in the course of said investigation they put together

a case strong enough to convict you

which would never have been put together if not for the

illegal search

using some of this logic they can come to your house search it

then leave but because they found something illegal

that they did not know about

it is ok as long as they do not use the search in court

but because they found it

they start an investigation in regards to the find

and in the course of said investigation they put together

a case strong enough to convict you

which would never have been put together if not for the

illegal search

Again, this is obviously logically frustrating, but it is legally sound.

"The people" would be conducting illegal activities if they tried a manuever like this, but that only serves to prove the point that there is a different between top government officials and "the people." There is, unforunately, a very important need for certain information to be known only by top executive officials. Whether or not this information here is to that level is up for debate...but the government is the one that chooses whether or not to classify it.

Sort of like letting the fox guard the henhouse, but it's hard to imagine the opposite being any more feasible.

Nope. Falls under getting a warrant. And again, that would be in a criminal investigation. The NSA isn't a criminal branch. They aren't law enforcement. They're military. They're part of the Dept of Defense. If the "wiretaps" had been done by the FBI for the purposes of prosecution, then they would violate the 4th.

no they did not start the investigation till after the find reread it

they start an investigation in regards to the find

I did.



makes it a violation.

example say somtething happened next door

they came to your house to talk to you

and in the process they opened your cabinet door to get a glass to get a drink of water (without asking)

and they see a bag of coke sitting there

how should it be handled

Exception to Warrant Requirements


Generally, under the U.S. Constitution, police cannot make an arrest or seize property without a warrant or unless you give your consent.

However, where exceptional or dangerous circumstances exist, peace officers are permitted to seize or detain people and evidence without a warrant. These are known as exigent circumstances.

Threats & Emergencies
The simplest definition of exigent circumstances is emergency situations. If there is an emergency situation, police do not need a warrant to arrest you or to search your property. Emergency situations, in fact, make the arrest reasonable. Some emergency situations that qualify as exigent circumstances are:

* Threat of disappearance – The police pursue a fleeing suspect into a house or apartment to make a warrantless arrest, believing the suspect is inside and may escape.
* Threat of destroyed evidence – Police see that evidence might be destroyed in a fire or flood, or where the evidence will disappear with a fleeing suspect.
* Threat to safety of public – The police enter your home if you put the public in danger, or if you are in need of immediate attention. Additionally, if the police approach your house and see you reach for something, they may be justified in entering out of concern for their own safety. But only the initial entry is justified; the police may not make a warrantless search of the entire house without more justification.
* Threat to property – The police may enter a building or home to control a fire, to search for bombs, and to look for a drug lab after smelling strange odors.

Factors that Contribute
Whether exigent circumstances exist will depend on the facts of each particular case. Some of the factors that courts use to determine exigency are:

* The seriousness of the offense – The more serious and dangerous the offense, the more likely that the police are justified.
* Whether you are armed – If the police have a reasonable belief that you are armed, they are more likely to be justified in arresting or searching you.
* Whether probable cause is clear – The more clear, the more justified the police are.
* Whether you are likely to be found at the location – Police cannot search for you if they do not have a reasonable belief that you will be found at the location.
* Likelihood of escape – If you are likely to flee or escape, the police may be justified in pursuing you.

They wouldn't need a warrant in that case. You should really read up on warrant requirements. It might help.

yes they would it is not in plane view it was behind a door that they opened without permission

maybe you should read up on it

They wouldn't need a warrant in that case. You should really read up on warrant requirements. It might help.

yes they would it is not in plane view it was behind a door that they opened without permission

maybe you should read up on it

You gave consent for them to enter. Once they found the bag of coke, they'd have probable cause.

You gave consent for them to enter. Once they found the bag of coke, they'd have probable cause.

Actualy that would fall under "illegal search & seizure";^]

U.S. Supreme Court
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986)

New York v. Class

No. 84-1181

Argued November 4, 1985

Decided February 25, 1986

475 U.S. 106

Syllabus

When two New York City police officers observed respondent driving above the speed limit in a car with a cracked windshield, both traffic violations under New York law, they stopped him. He then emerged from the car and approached one of the officers. The other officer opened the car door to look for the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is located on the left doorjamb in pre-1969 automobiles. When the officer did not find the VIN on the doorjamb, he reached into the car's interior to move some papers obscuring the area of the dashboard where the VIN is located on later model automobiles. In doing so, the officer saw the handle of a gun protruding from underneath the driver's seat and seized the gun. Respondent was then arrested. After the state trial court denied a motion to suppress the gun as evidence, respondent was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, in the absence of any justification for the search of respondent's car besides the traffic violations, the search was prohibited and the gun must accordingly be excluded from evidence.

Held:

1. The New York Court of Appeals' decision did not rest on an adequate and independent state ground, so as to deprive this Court of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals' opinion, which mentions the New York Constitution only once and then in direct conjunction with the Federal Constitution, and which makes use of both federal and New York cases in its analysis, lacks the requisite "plain statement" that it rests on state grounds. Moreover, in determining that the search in question was prohibited, the court looked to the Federal Constitution, and not to a state statute that authorizes officers to demand that drivers reveal their VIN, merely holding that that statute provided no justification for a search. P P. 109-110.

2. The police officer's action in searching respondent's car did not violate the Fourth Amendment. P P. 111-119.

(a) Because of the important role played by the VIN in the pervasive governmental regulation of automobiles and the efforts by the Federal Government through regulations to assure that the VIN is placed in plain view, respondent had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the

Page 475 U. S. 107

VIN. The placement of the papers obscuring the VIN was insufficient to create a privacy interest in the VIN. P P. 111-114.

(b) The officer's search was sufficiently unintrusive to be constitutionally permissible in light of respondent's lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the VIN, the fact that the officers observed respondent commit two traffic violations, and concerns for the officers' safety. P P. 114-119.

63 N.Y.2d 491, 472 N.E.2d 1009, reversed and remanded.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, and in Part II of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, P. 120. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which MARSHALL and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, P. 122. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined, post, P. 131.