Tag: Fourth Amendment

  • Constitution Party Statement on technology, privacy, and constitutional government

    Constitution Party Statement on technology, privacy, and constitutional government

    Technology, Privacy, and Constitutional Government

    The Constitution Party affirms that technological advancement does not alter the fundamental relationship between the people and their government. The powers delegated to government remain limited by the Constitution, and the rights of the people do not diminish because new technologies make intrusion, surveillance, data collection, or centralized control easier.

    The Fourth Amendment was written to secure the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and to prohibit general searches by requiring probable cause and particularity. We hold that these principles apply no less in the digital age. A government that lacks constitutional authority to conduct a general search does not acquire that authority by employing a corporation, purchasing access to privately collected information, contracting for a surveillance service, or directing artificial intelligence to search and correlate information on its behalf.

    Private enterprise and private property are essential to liberty.

    Corporations and technology companies operating as private enterprises are therefore not government merely because they possess information or technology. But neither may government use a private corporation as an instrument to exercise powers government itself does not possess. When private technology is employed for governmental purposes, constitutional limitations upon government must remain intact.

    This principle has immediate application to automated license-plate readers, facial and image recognition, artificial intelligence, data brokers, cloud databases, and other technologies capable of recording, retaining, combining, analyzing, and retrospectively searching information about the movements, associations, activities, or transactions of the people. The Constitution Party opposes the transformation of such technologies into systems of general governmental surveillance of people who are not suspected of crime.

    The same constitutional principles apply to the rapidly expanding infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence and large-scale computing. The Constitution Party does not oppose data centers, artificial intelligence, or technological development as such. We support genuine private enterprise conducted with respect for private property and constitutional government.

    We oppose government/private partnerships, special governmental privilege, involuntary public subsidy of private enterprise, and arrangements that transfer extraordinary private costs to taxpayers, utility customers, property owners, or communities that did not voluntarily assume them.

    Government also has a duty to conduct the people’s business openly. Public money, public infrastructure, governmental authority, tax privileges, utility commitments, or other public resources should not be committed through secrecy that prevents meaningful accountability before governmental commitments become effectively irreversible.

    Neither economic development, technological competition, administrative convenience, public safety, nor national security creates governmental power that the Constitution does not grant. Technology may change rapidly, but principles of constitutional government do not change.

    The Constitution Party therefore affirms a simple standard: government may not use technology – or a private corporation providing that technology – to exercise power over the people that the Constitution does not give government itself.

  • The Warrant Requirement of the 4th Amendment

    The Warrant Requirement of 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.”

    4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    Reasonable vs. Unreasonable Searches & Seizures the 5 Must Have Elements of a Reasonable Search

    The main point is that we are not free from ALL searches and seizures, only unlawful ones. ALL FIVE of the following elements are present for that search:

    1. A Proper Warrant: The search and/or seizure is illegal if there is no warrant.

    2. Based Upon Probable Cause: There must be probable cause that a law has been broken or violated.

    3. Supported By An Oath Before A Common Law Court: The warrant must have been issued by a common law court.

    4. Particularly Describing The Place To Be Searched: If there is no description then they can search anything. No limits. This is why you never consent (see below)

    5. The Persons Or Things To Be Seized: Again same here. If there is no description or if you give consent then all bets are off. They can seize anything. Never give consent.

    THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO YOUR RIGHT TO PROPERTY WITHIN THE 4th AMENDMENT. ALL searches and seizures that do not have all Five elements present are in violation of the 4th Amendment and therefore in violation of your constitutionally recognized right to be secure in your persons and property.

    KrisAnne Hall


  • Protecting Citizens’ Privacy


    The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that,

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…but upon probable cause…”.

    The federal government’s collection, compiling, and abuse of databases to snoop on law-abiding citizens has rapidly expanding over the past two decades and continues to do so. This includes monitoring law-abiding citizens’ bank deposits, cell phone usage, e-mail, air travel, school children, lawful gun purchases, health care, medical records, immunizations, fingerprints, DNA, and genetic tests. Most often, these databases are built using the Social Security number.

    There have been renewed attempts by the federal government, especially since 9/11, to impose a federal ID on all citizens by requiring States to have social security numbers on drivers’ licenses. The federal government often accomplishes the establishment of a database through mandates and grants to the State.

    Corporations are also involved in the collection and selling of personal data without consent. The Social Security Act stipulates that the social security number is never to be used for identification purposes.

    The Constitution Party supports the protection of a citizen’s privacy rights and opposes the use of the social security number for identification purposes and any attempt to create and impose a national ID.


    Resolution passed by the Constitution Party National Committee, March 9, 2002, in Charleston, South Carolina