> Would it be ok for the police to come into your home, no proper warrant other than a "general warrant", like the writ of assistance for which Americans rebelled against UK, and take your stuff, as long as they promise to not look through it?
Wrong question. Would it be okay for the police to come into your home, not touch anything, but just write down a list of everything they see? What if they did this without the bodily intrusion?
It is arguable whether or not the Fourth covers this. There are legitimate legal arguments that can be made for its legality. You might not agree with those arguments, and you might not find them convincing, but you can't dismiss them just because you don't like it. You have to argue that property is, in fact, being seized (which I'd disagree with you on). You have to argue that "search" is sufficient to meet the standard of the Fourth. And so on.
If anything, this is one of the most striking examples of how we have to bend over backwards in order to fit 21st century morals and ethics to codes written 200 years ago.
Wrong question. Would it be okay for the police to come into your home, not touch anything, but just write down a list of everything they see? What if they did this without the bodily intrusion?
It is arguable whether or not the Fourth covers this. There are legitimate legal arguments that can be made for its legality. You might not agree with those arguments, and you might not find them convincing, but you can't dismiss them just because you don't like it. You have to argue that property is, in fact, being seized (which I'd disagree with you on). You have to argue that "search" is sufficient to meet the standard of the Fourth. And so on.
If anything, this is one of the most striking examples of how we have to bend over backwards in order to fit 21st century morals and ethics to codes written 200 years ago.