Santa Cruz Indymedia :
Santa Cruz Indymedia

I did some searching for 4th amendment violations

This is what I found. Some of it is not very encouraging.

It appears that the 4th amendment protections do not apply to ‚Äúnaked eye searches‚Ä?, where cops are surveilling a location without any recording equipment. It seems that they are referring to searches in public places, as opposed to private homes. But even on private property the Supreme Court has allowed some loopholes. For more information on this, check out:

A brief passage from this site reads:

Confusingly for both theorists and practitioners, the Court has sometimes upheld searches without individualized suspicion; but at other times has insisted that such searches are presumptively unconstitutional. This insistence, in turn, has pressured the Court into denying that an instance of naked-eye surveillance is a search at all.
Were the Court to both hold naked-eye surveillance to be a search, and also insist that searches must proceed only upon individualized suspicion, then most ordinary surveillance would be unconstitutional. That is because police and FBI agents typically engage in naked-eye surveillance before they have probable cause or anything like it. Indeed, it is often such surveillance that generates the probable cause supporting a later application for a search warrant.

Once again, an overly broad reading of the Fourth Amendment in one place (presumptively requiring all searches to be supported by probable cause or something like it) creates hydraulic pressure to weaken the Amendment in another place (by denying that naked-eye surveillance is even covered by the Amendment at all).

About the first amendment:

Q: Can free speech be limited in any way?

A: The government may place "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech as long as they are "reasonable." For example, requiring people to obtain a permit to hold a meeting in a public building, or to conduct a demonstration that may interfere with traffic, constitutes a justifiable regulation.

But restrictions that are overly burdensome violate the First Amendment. For example, during the 1960s, officials in Southern cities frequently required civil rights activists to apply for permits in order to hold demonstrations, and then granted or denied the permits arbitrarily. Thus, in the 1969 case of Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, the Supreme Court struck down such licensing schemes as unconstitutional. Similarly, in 1977, the Court ruled that the local government's requirement that members of the American Nazi Party post $350,000 in insurance in order to hold a march and rally in Skokie, Illinois was an unconstitutional infringement on the group's First Amendment rights. Insurance requirements were also regularly used in the South to repress civil rights demonstrations.


The ultimate defender of liberty, however, is neither the Court nor Congress, but the people. In 1931 Judge Learned Hand famously warned Yale Law School graduates that

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.... While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

Information about COINTELPRO

Also, lest I forget a sorrid part of my own history, there was a period of time when I believed I was the target of harassment by right wing NGO or possibly govt agents. They mostly did silent hang up calls at a time when I was emotionally vulnerable. But there were other more tangible things that happened too, which are difficult to pin on any one person, but which I have since labeled harassment. This type of harassment was for the most part always of a very low frequency, but has continued almost to the present day. In contrast, actual encounters with uniformed Police Officers during this time were always cordial.

New Comments are disabled, please visit


No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event


Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software