Hacker News Reader

Comment by lesuorac | Hacker News Reader

> Nobody doubts that if police find contraband while executing an otherwise valid warrant, it would be entirely constitutional to prosecute based on that evidence.

The framers would doubt that on probably two counts.

4th) Seizing an item not listed in the warrant sounds like a general warrant with extra steps.

5th) As originally intended, you can't self incriminate yourself with your personal belongings. It lead to a whole host of issues with prosecuting people so the US judicial system has decided to ignoring it's intended meaning. This is also why Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is from the 1920s [1] (as opposed to say 1789 when the constitution was written) since that fruit used to be always inadmissible as opposed to now sometimes inadmissible.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

View on HN

Neither of those statements has ever been real law. A general warrant allows searching unspecified persons or places. It’s not remotely similar to finding things you didn’t expect at a place you otherwise had a proper warrant for.

And the fifth amendment has nothing to do with personal belongings. It means you can’t be forced to testify against yourself.

> (4th amendment) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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. [1]

General warrants can specify places. The point is really that the 4th amendment requires you to list where you're searching and what to be seized. The framers complained about how when a general warrant was issued; the British officers would seize _all_ of their papers and not just criminal ones. The framers definitely would not like you using a warrant for gambling ledgers to seize _not_ gambling ledgers.

5th amendment's current interpretation is that it only means you can't be forced to testify against yourself. However, it's initial interpretation was that your belongings couldn't be used either. [2]

> The Court reasoned that the defendant had a superior property right in the papers, and that compelling their production as evidence was compelled self-incrimination [3]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_v._United_States

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule

>The framers definitely would not like you using a warrant for gambling ledgers to seize _not_ gambling ledgers.

You are failing to confront Rayiner's point, which is that it has always been the law in the US that if the police search your computer for evidence of fraud, let's say, and they come across a folder named "child porn", and if they search in that directory and actually find child porn, that child porn can be used to convict you of the crime of possession of child porn even if the search warrant was only to search your computer for evidence of fraud.

By the same principle, if they stop you for speeding or having an expired license tag and it is obvious that you are drunk or high, the fact that they didn't know (or couldn't have known) you were drunk or high when they decided to stop you does not prevent the authorities from using the evidence gathering during the traffic stop to convict you of driving under the influence.

Uh, uno reverse. You have missed understood the entire conversation.

[1] It starts of with rayiner saying that pornography isn't covered by the 1st amendment.

[2] To which I counter with, pornography isn't listed in the 1st amendment because the people who wrote it considered it a non-issue in the sense of "why wouldn't it be allowed?" since there was already nude imagery and prostitution.

[3] To which rayiner focused on that there are many pornography bans in the united states. While also bringing up the 4th amendment and saying it doesn't cover privacy.

[4] To which I counter with, as intended by the framers they would absolutely disagree with our current interpretation of the 4th and 5th amendments. They would agree that the 4th amendment restricts what you can take during a seizure to _just_ the items listed in the warrant. They would also agree that the 5th amendment restricts what you can use in court and somebody's personal belongings are restricted. So Stanley v Georgia would've still be a win for Stanley.

[5] To which rayiner claims (without evidence) that neither of those interpretations are correct.

[6] To which I counter with (with evidence), the 4th amendment is in response to seizures of belongings _not listed_ in the general warrant and the 5th amendment was previously cited in court as a reason that production of your personal belongings could be considered self-incrimination.

And that brings us to the present time with your post so lets quickly dissect that.

> which is that it has always been the law in the US

It has not always been the law. This is covered by [4] and [6] where originally you can only seize whats listed in the warrant. The interpretation has been changed for the expedience of prosecution but because it's interpretation was changed that means it wasn't "always the law".

> By the same principle, if they stop you for speeding or having an expired license tag and it is obvious that you are drunk or high, the fact that they didn't know (or couldn't have known) you were drunk or high when they decided to stop you does not prevent the authorities from using the evidence gathering during the traffic stop to convict you of driving under the influence.

This is an example involving neither the 1st, 4th, 5th, a warrant, or pornography so it's really not relevant to the discussion. However, if during the seizure of your vehicle (for it's misuse) the police found a gambling ledger that would run afoul of the 4th amendment and it's admittance in court would run afoul of the 5th amendment according to the original meaning.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40246109

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40246440

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40246804

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40247108

[5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40247591

[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40249433

Reply on news.ycombinator.com