FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Ego-Death on Concourse C
View Single Post
Old Aug 15, 2012, 9:50 am
  #3  
nachtnebel
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
The damage done to persons at whim like this by such searches is precisely why the 4th Amendment was added. There is an interesting article that covers this aspect of it titled Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment, by Thomas Davies, published in the Michigan Law review, page 576.

The preference for warrants is premised on the expectation that magistrates will be more likely than officers to perceive when justification for a proposed search is inadequate. The historical evidence indicates that the Framers preferred use of specific warrants rather than warrantless intrusions for essentially the same reason. The Framers sought to prevent unjustified searches and arrests from occurring, not merely to provide an after-the-fact remedy for unjustified intrusions. For example, the complaints they voiced about searches concerned the breach of the security of the house. Likewise, the constitutional texts they wrote did not simply seek to provide a post-intrusion remedy or condemn only the actual use of a general warrant; rather, the constitutional texts adopted a preventive strategy by consistently prohibiting even the issuance of a too-loose warrant.
The historical evidence also demonstrates that the Framers believed that the orderly and formal processes associated with specific warrants, including the judicial assessment of whether there was adequate cause for the intrusion, provided the best means of preventing violations of the security of person or house. In particular, the Framers thought that magistrates were more capable than ordinary officers of making sound decisions as to whether a search was justified.

The principal difference between framing-era statements and the modern warrant-preference construction is that the former sometimes expressed outright disdain for the character and judgment of ordinary officers.

Indeed, the Framers’ perception of the untrustworthiness of the ordinary officer was reinforced by class-consciousness and status concerns. It was disagreeable enough for an elite or middle-class householder to have to open his house to a search in response to a command from a high status magistrate acting under a judicial commission; it was a gross insult to the householder’s status as a “free-man” to be bossed about by an ordinary officer who was likely drawn from an inferior class.
And here we have the lowest levels of society not searching our house at their discretion, but searching our sex organs, which is a far more intimate and invasive search. Again, with no particularized warrant or cause of any kind. These things are indeed damaging on many levels. The link posted by InkUnderNails points to one of the types of damage that results from such conduct.
nachtnebel is offline