History abundantly documents the tendency of Government – however benevolent and benign its motives – to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect “domestic security.” Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.
— US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, writing in the majority opinion in United States v. U.S. District Court (407 U.S. 297) (1972). Does this sound relevant to anything that the government is doing today? This case remains valid precedent.
- 7 Months Of Warrantless ‘Just Metadata’ Paints A Clear Picture Of Your Personal Life (techdirt.com)
- Snowden’s Constitution vs Obama’s Constitution (techdirt.com)
- Thurgood Marshall’s Prescient Warning: Don’t Gut the 4th Amendment (theatlantic.com)
- What Aren’t They Collecting? (jonathanturley.org)