Suppose the police want to get illegal drugs off the streets of Florida.
So they begin stopping pedestrians at gunpoint, shoving them against walls, frisking them, and searching their belongings. They also force their way into random houses — including yours, maybe — to search for drugs.
The police would likely seize some drugs and arrest some dealers this way. But the great majority of people frightened, humiliated, and invaded would be entirely innocent.
Can the police do that? The Constitution provides a clear answer: No.
The Fourth Amendment is clear: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” It allows only searches with a warrant issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
In short, it means you’ve got a right to be left alone by the police unless they present evidence to a judge showing there’s a strong chance you’ve committed a crime, and the judge issues a warrant.
This was no small matter for the founding fathers. Indeed, the King of England’s defilement of such rights was “one of the driving forces behind the American Revolution itself,” as Chief Justice John Roberts explained in a 2014 ruling. “The Fourth Amendment was the founding generation’s response,” Roberts wrote, to laws “which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity.”
Such abuses are no longer ancient history. In the name of fighting “chaos” and an imaginary crime wave, Trump has launched a broad assault on our Fourth Amendment rights — especially by an increasingly militarized ICE.
The impact has been especially hard felt in states like Florida, which accounts for the one of the highest numbers of ICE arrests so far this year. But it's being felt all over.
Take Chicago, for example, where Trump openly proclaimed that the city was “about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.” ...
Among other recent abuses, ICE commandos there conducted a military assault on a five-story apartment building. There was no attempt to persuade a judge that anyone in the building — let alone everyone — was likely a criminal.
Without a warrant, TIME reported, ICE agents dropped from Black Hawk helicopters onto the roof and “worked their way through the building, kicking down doors and throwing flash bang grenades, rounding up adults and screaming children alike, detaining them in zip-ties.”
ICE seized everyone in the apartment building. Agents pointed guns in the faces of terrified citizens, handcuffed them, and held them for hours. “Photos of the aftermath,” reported TIME, “show toys and shoes littering the apartment hallways that were left in the chaos as people were pulled from their beds.”
Trump has told military leaders of his intent to use our “cities as training grounds for our military.” The Chicago apartment building action occurred the same day. Is that what they’re training for?
In recent months, a series of national demonstrations have embodied the theme “No Kings!” Aptly so. One of the complaints listed against King George III in the Declaration of Independence was: “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”
The assault in Chicago was what the framers of our Constitution feared — and what they hoped our Bill of Rights could thwart. But a Constitution is not self-defending.
As Trump muses over an unconstitutional third term, summarily executes alleged drug smugglers without a trial or even an arrest, and invokes pretend uprisings to justify federalizing the National Guard, the danger is real and imminent.
But we defeated a King once. And if we all recognize the danger and are prepared to stand up for our democracy, we can do it again.
Mitchell Zimmerman is an attorney, longtime social activist, and author. His writing can also be found on his Substack, Reasoning Together with Mitchell Zimmerman. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
3 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
David Daniels
The Supreme court’s decision (likely this week) on the Deployment of the National guard in Chicago is a make or break moment for the rule of law. What is at stake is no less than whether the truth and facts matter. In our system of law, trial courts determine the facts based on the record presented by both sides. Appellate courts are bound by that determination unless the lower court’s findings of fact are “clearly erroneous.” In this case, the administration is saying that a court must accept the president’s assessment, even if, as a trial judge wrote, “the administration is not tethered to the facts” That can’t be what our founding fathers envisioned. To rule for the President would show that a majority of SCOTUS justices are clearly not tethered to the Constitution.
Wednesday, October 22 Report this
rayfusco68
If you are under the mistaken thinking that this doesn't effect you, you need to heed the statement made during the growth of the Nazi regime by a member of the clergy in a famous sermon; "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
Wednesday, October 22 Report this
Lktinsanfran
No two ways about it! Trump and the ICE "soldiers" are all terrorists. WE must stop this chaos.
Wednesday, October 22 Report this