RESIST!!!!WEF/Democrats only understand power.
If you are in power, you rule, if you are not, you submit.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
RESIST!!!!WEF/Democrats only understand power.
If you are in power, you rule, if you are not, you submit.
As are conservatives, and both are true.^^^ This post is retarded and racist.
No it has not. In US v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the court held there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in banking records or anything else in the possession of most third parties so the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Try harder to make unsubstantiated claims.Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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.
BTW commie, the courts have long held, for the government, at any level, to access your phone or bank records, requires a warrant. It's really no different than them walking into your home and going through your paper files.
.
Fan of the stasi approach?And none of those things were searched and if they had been searched it still would only mean it couldn't be used against them in court, not that it couldn't have been taken.
Nonsense.LOL. The conservatives are the ones that destroyed any notion of privacy in the name of making sure no black folks got off on a technicality
Fan of the stasi approach?
as the old saying goes, which applies to you, “Better to let people think you’re stupid, than open your mouth and prove it.”
Invent it? Hell, you don't even know it...Hence my post...Just how the law works. I didn't invent it. I mean if I were that inventive, I would invent a non-existent right and then call people names who dare point out I was wrong.
The right to financial privacy act isn't in the constitution. That is statutory.
No it has not. In US v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the court held there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in banking records or anything else in the possession of most third parties so the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Try harder to make unsubstantiated claims.
You mean the bipartisan PATRIOT Act?They have been doing it since the GOP allowed it on 2001.
It is a law that has exceptions to it. Something you would know if you actually knew anything about it.No shit captain obvious. It's still the law.
.
It is a law that has exceptions to it. Something you would know if you actually knew anything about it.
This could have fallen under Class 2 or Class 6 permissible disclosures to the government under the RFPA. I am really not sure why you think the courts are heading in any direction let alone a "right" one when it comes to search and seizure cases. Hasn't been that long ago that they refused to hear several cases that would have resolved cellphone searches at the border. It is a freaking hot mess of rulings at both the federal and state level and the government just outsources its data collection of phone records to AT&T.And I foresee a similar SCOTUS decision coming on banking that was rendered on cell phones. Most all of the same principles apply. And everything has exceptions, even the 4th, but at least they're heading in the right direction.
.
This could have fallen under Class 2 or Class 6 permissible disclosures to the government under the RFPA. I am really not sure why you think the courts are heading in any direction let alone a "right" one when it comes to search and seizure cases. Hasn't been that long ago that they refused to hear several cases that would have resolved cellphone searches at the border. It is a freaking hot mess of rulings at both the federal and state level and the government just outsources its data collection of phone records to AT&T.