Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (3675)	5/15/2000 12:25:00 PM
From: The Street	Respond to of 13062

AIN'T THE NET GREAT!

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (3675)	5/15/2000 8:47:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13062

On the other hand, didn't we have a recent Supreme Court decision that when police "squeeze" luggage, this is an unreasonable search and seizure? This seems an expansion of the 4th amendment. They also struck down today the Congressional Act that gave rape victims the right to sue for damages, saying that this is a states' right violation. So I'm not sure which way the pendulum is swinging. I do not understand what you are saying about not notifying people when their home is searched with a warrant. This is not my specialty, but aren't most criminal search warrants issued without notifying the occupants of the home to be searched? If police had learned pre-acquittal that O.J., for example, was keeping the bloody knife in his closet, why should he be notified that the police may be coming by to conduct a search? I thought the whole point was to do these things by surprise so that evidence is not destroyed. Maybe if I knew more about the specific bill in question, I'd better understand what is at issue.