The Instigator
maximluchnik
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MrMexicanTomato
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Search and Seizure Laws should be loosened

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 83305
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

maximluchnik

Pro

I believe that search and seizure laws should be loosened. The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. Therefore, Search and seizure laws are violating the 4th amendment. Also, according to the bill of rights It takes a Judge independent of the police to issue a warrant. A warrant must be obtained unless the facts fit one of the exceptions established by case law. However, police are searching innocent citizens without warrants.
MrMexicanTomato

Con

I am willing to accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
MrMexicanTomato

Con

Not sure on what you mean by loosening the search and seizure laws. I'm going to go with you wanting to strengthen the law on search and seizure which is the 4th amendment protecting against unlawful or unnecessary searches by enforcement

Protection

With this, I am talking about searches that are performed before boarding onto a plane or a boat or any other from of transportation. This is relevant because an airport, for example, do many searches of anyone that is presumed suspicious or is a possible threat. Nowadays, you hear or read about specific things that happen because bags or person were not searched at all or properly. Search and seizure's withing the grounds of it being suspicion or can be potential threat to others is essential everywhere.

Why it does not violate the 4th Amendment.

First off, what is the 4th 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."

"probable cause..."- If any way, shape or form you are under the suspicion of breaking the law or suspicion of being a threat to others in any way, this gives the enforcement the green light to perform their search. It is the job of enforcement to enforce and abide by the law. They are within grounds when there is probable cause or suspicion.
Debate Round No. 2
maximluchnik

Pro

I meant the same point as you. So we are debating on the same side.
MrMexicanTomato

Con

MrMexicanTomato forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
maximluchnik

Pro

maximluchnik forfeited this round.
MrMexicanTomato

Con

MrMexicanTomato forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
maximluchnik

Pro

maximluchnik forfeited this round.
MrMexicanTomato

Con

MrMexicanTomato forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Con wins by default

Since Pro didn't make his point clearly
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Pro's gusty round 2 argument was so stunning

That I died

And rose again
No votes have been placed for this debate.