"As reported by the Committee of Eleven and corrected by Gerry, the Amendment was a one-barrelled affair, directed apparently only to the essentials of a valid warrant. The general principle of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure seems to have been stated only by way of premise, and the positive inhibition upon action by the Federal Government limited consequently to the issuance of warrants without probable cause, etc. That Benson interpreted it in this light is shown by his argument that, although the clause was good as far as it went, it was not sufficient, and by the change which he advocated to obviate this objection. The provision as he proposed it contained two clauses. The general right of security from unreasonable search and seizure was given a sanction of its own, and the amendment thus intentionally given a broader scope. That the prohibition against unreasonable searches' was intended, accordingly, to cover something other than the form of the warrant is a question no longer left to implication to be derived from the phraseology of the Amendment. "
That is not our question. Our question is whether the Government, though armed with a proper search warrant or though making a search incident to an arrest, may seize, and use at the trial, testimonial evidence, whether it would otherwise be barred by the Fifth Amendment or would be free from such strictures. The teaching of Boyd is that such evidence, though seized pursuant to a lawful search, is inadmissible.
The right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment relates in part, of course, to the precincts of the home or the office. But it does not make them sanctuaries where the law can never reach. There are such places in the world. A mosque in Fez, Morocco, that I have visited, is, by custom, a sanctuary where any refugee may hide, safe from police intrusion. We have no such sanctuaries here. A policeman in "hot pursuit" or an officer with a search warrant can enter any house, any room, any building, any office. The privacy of those places is, of course, protected against invasion except in limited situations. The full privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is, however, reached when we come to books, pamphlets, papers, letters, documents, and other personal effects. Unless they are contraband or instruments of the crime, they may not be reached by any warrant, nor may they be lawfully seized by the police who are in "hot pursuit." By reason of the Fourth Amendment, the police may not rummage around among these personal effects, no matter how formally perfect their authority may appear to be. They may not seize them. If they do, those articles may not be used in evidence. Any invasion whatsoever of those personal effects is "unreasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That is the teaching of Entick v. Carrington, Boyd v. United States, and Gouled v. United States.
The constitutional philosophy is, I think, clear. The personal effects and possessions of the individual (all contraband and the like excepted) are sacrosanct from prying eyes, from the long arm of the law, from any rummaging by police. Privacy involves the choice of the individual to disclose or to reveal what he believes, what he thinks, what he possesses. The article may be a nondescript work of art, a manuscript of a book, a personal account book, a diary, invoices, personal clothing, jewelry, or whatnot. Those who wrote the Bill of Rights believed that every individual needs both to communicate with others and to keep his affairs to himself. That dual aspect of privacy means that the individual should have the freedom to select for himself the time and circumstances when he will share his secrets with others and decide the extent of that sharing. [Footnote 3/2] This is his prerogative
This course provides an introduction to the empirical methods political scientists use to answer questions about politics, and the reasons why such methods matter. We begin by considering how we use data and information in social science in general and political science in particular. We then examine three basic strategies for overcoming the obstacles to reliable knowledge about the political world: experimentation, quantitative studies (statistics) and smaller case studies with a qualitative emphasis. This course will prepare you to take a more in-depth look into these methods in subsequent coursework.
This is an upper-level seminar dealing with democratic expectations. It revolves around three sets of questions. First, if we are democrats, what should we morally expect from individual citizens? More specifically: when, how, and to what extent should we demand that individual citizens in a democracy oppose unjust laws? When, how, and why should we shift from viewing individual citizens not as perpetrators of (or complicit in) injustices, but as victims of injustice?Second, what moral hopes should we attach to democratic institutions at the global level? How much moral weight should we attach to each nation in the world achieving democracy? How much moral weight should we attach to ideals of global democracy? Should we believe in a human right to democracy, and what might such a right mean? Finally, what should we expect of the study of democracy? Should normative and empirical democratic theory inform one another, and if so, how? If, for example, international relations scholars have reason to think that all great powers in the future will be democracies, should this matter morally? If so, why? If scholars studying domestic politics repeatedly find that democratic voters are ignorant and irrational, should this really undermine our moral confidence in democracy as a system of government?
This seminar will pose a straightforward and critical question, can you have national security without human rights and can you have human rights without national security. To address this we will consider three topics: Human Rights, Political Strategy and Military Strategy. Needless to say, these are not autonomous categories, especially as the military is being asked to engage in state building which clearly implicates political strategies. And how states are built engages with topics that fall under the rubric of human rights. We will not address this in a theoretical manner but rather using examples drawn from the books as well as participants will choose countries that irrelevant to the topic. 2b1af7f3a8