search and seizure

In a ruling that should chill the heart of every American who values his Fourth Amendment rights, Obama-appointed DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta has refused to quash a Democrat subpoena for President Trump’s business records from before he was President. Would he have done the same for a Republican-issued subpoena for Obama's college records, birth certificate and passport records?

This is the first installment of a sentence-by-sentence explanation of the proposed “Fourth Amendment for the 21^st Century” to show the amendment is 100 percent based in sound Fourth Amendment principles and purposes consistent with the Framers’ vision. The first article, “WHY IT’S TIME FOR A 21ST CENTURY FOURTH AMENDMENT IN VIRGINIA,” provided general background about the amendment.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons, ConservativeHQ contributor and constitutional lawyer, provides a strong rebuttal on Fourth Amendment specialist Professor Orin Kerr's misleading and internally contradictory view of the Virginia House of Delegates' 21^st Century Fourth Amendment (HJ 578), which is designed to add clarity for citizens, law enforcement, lawyers and judges on unreasonable search and seizure.

To: Virginia House of Delegates

The Supreme Court decision, based on a Los Angeles case, says officers may search a residence without a warrant as long as one occupant consents.

The Washington Times and a former journalist, Audrey Hudson, sued the Dept. of Homeland Security, accusing agents of illegally seizing reporting notes during the execution of a search warrant in an unrelated case.