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.
My goal in this section and the next few posts is to simply illustrate how the language of the Amendment is currently being interpreted. This is meaningful because in the greater context of the research blog, it is paramount for the reader to understand the importance of interpretation of the law in the context of our Constitutional and natural rights. Especially when it comes to our collective personal and private information, regardless of where the information resides.
There are three methods for interpreting the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution according the Harvard Law Review published in April of 2007.(196) Coincidentally, The Protect America Act, which many of these controversial programs were created under, was signed into law not long after the publication of this Harvard Law Review.(197) The three methods are “Social Convention”, “Originalism”, and “Dynamic Incorporation”.(198) In the next three posts we will explore each method independently for context.