, , , , , ,

(Portions adapted from Wikipedia)

The IV Amendment  “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.”

In 1756, the colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation that barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs and permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing them to search the homes of colonists and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods.

In mid-January 1761, a group of over 50 merchants represented by James Otis, petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced British colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance. John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events as “the spark in which originated the American Revolution.” However, the court ruled against Otis.

Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became precedent for the Fourth Amendment:
That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

So, the question then becomes, were these searches considered reasonable? 


I suppose that if the FBI / SWAT had reasonable suspicion that a killer was in a single home that would be reasonable. If they are making people in a large area exit their home with their hands over their heads then enter the home and search it. That to me is not reasonable. Sort of seems to me to be like a “General Warrant” – the same type of action the colony / people of Massachusetts in 1756 enacted legislation that barred the use if General Warrants.

This spins right back to the argument I made earlier that had the Commonwealth of Massachusetts not disarmed its populous; the manhunt that took 5 days would have taken 5 hours!
When will people see that they are being walked on in larger and larger doses? The creeping instrumentalism that is progressivism is eating the constitution alive, and many sit back and say, “well if it is for my safety”. <>