We dedicated ourselves to a powerful idea - organic law rather than naked power. There seems to be universal acceptance of that idea in the nation.
Potter StewartRead
The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.
Interpretation
The 4th Amendment protects individuals from unwarranted government intrusion into their homes.
This quote emphasizes the importance of the 4th Amendment in safeguarding personal privacy and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It highlights the constitutional principle that individuals have the right to retreat into their homes, where they should feel secure and private from external interference, particularly from governmental authorities.
In practice
This quote can be used in a discussion about individual rights during a legal seminar.
We dedicated ourselves to a powerful idea - organic law rather than naked power. There seems to be universal acceptance of that idea in the nation.
Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.
A person's mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not give rise to probable cause to search that person.
It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures.
Swift justice demands more than just swiftness.
For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law.
The critical point is that the Constitution places the right of silence beyond the reach of government.
The agreement of the parties cannot make that good which the law maketh void.
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.
Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from the failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.
The constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.