Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
from the it's-sad-that-we-have-to-keep-doing-this dept
Earlier this year, we noted that the Federal Circuit had rejected a similar request, saying that there was no probable cause, and in this case, the 3rd Circuit appeals court said that you do, in fact, need a warrant. Combined with other recent rulings that putting a GPS device on a suspect's car without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment and that the famed warrantless wiretaps violated the 4th Amendment, and you see a whole bunch of 4th Amendment violations by our leaders lately.
Now, here's the part I don't understand: why is the government so anxious to wiretap/spy on people without a warrant? Getting a warrant is not difficult for the most part. The courts tend to defer to the government on such things most of the time. It's not as if the courts are saying law enforcement can't get this info. They're just saying you have to go through basic due process to prove there's a reason for doing what they're doing. And yet the Obama administration (like the Bush administration before it) seem horrified at the idea that there should be some basic oversight over spying on Americans.