An amendment to provide for a Writ of Reasonable Suspicion...

[originalpckelly]

for the ends of preventing and eliminating mass surveillance and ensuring the presumption of innocence on the part of law enforcement.

The right of the people to the presumption of innocence shall not be forfeited but upon conviction of a crime or direct and immediate witness of a violent act by a person creating a situation of clear and present danger, and no Writ approving surveillance in public shall be issued unless proof of reasonable suspicion has been shown, under Oath or affirmation, with particular places or people to be surveilled described.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. What?!?!

That makes no sense.

Why would you require an eye-witness? And why only for violent acts?

And what is "proof of reasonable suspicion?" and to whom is it shown?


Please stop trying to amend the constitution - you're not very good at it.

[originalpckelly]

2. The first part provides an exception for immediate danger...

such as if a person has a gun and has shot someone, the presumption of innocence on the part of the cops may be waved until the person is in safe custody.

Proof of reasonable suspicion is a burden of proof that limits wide-ranging surveillance in the public domain, such as mass surveillance of streets for the purpose of "preventing crime".

An example would be the massive network of CCTV cameras that have been installed in the UK.

People should not be placed under official suspicion and treated like a criminal suspect, unless they have done something wrong or are materially connected to a crime.

The proof is shown to a magistrate or other officer of the judicial branch.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Materially

how does a system of cameras differ from having actual policemen on the street, observing things?


Both are form of public surveillance - one is just much more broad-based. Would you require a cop to wear blinders when walking on the street?

How does the existence of a camera indicate the loss of the presumption of innocence?

Sorry, I just don't understand this whole thing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. I guess you don't, if you are down with the whole camera surveillance thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. I'm asking

how it relates to his proposed constitutional amendment.

The problem with these amendment threads that the OP starts is that we have to work backwards. IF he would state the perceived problem up front, then discuss the proposed remedy, the conversation would go much better. Instead, he just posts a proposed amendment, and we have to try to figure out what problem he's solving.

Don't presume that because I find this amendment very poorly written and poorly thought-out that you can determine anything else about my opinions on surveillance.

[originalpckelly]

10. Um, yeah, I did that:

"for the ends of preventing and eliminating mass surveillance and ensuring the presumption of innocence on the part of law enforcement."

[MonkeyFunk]

11. And that doesn't tell me much of anything

because you haven't explained how the presumption of innocence has been lost.

I don't see how a camera presumes I'm guilty of something.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. ok

I'm done with this - you're editing your original post as you go along, making a discussion of it impossible.

My last word - it's a horribly worded amendment that is entirely unworkable and impractical.

[originalpckelly]

13. There are in reality two different levels of presumption of innocence...

1. The level we are all most familiar with, the presumption of innocence by a jury about an alleged crime.

2. The level we have all probably heard of, a "person of interest" or a "suspect" in a crime, but never associated directly with the presumption of innocence.

When a police officer detains someone or puts them under surveillance, that person has become a suspect and courts usually find that there is a thing called "reasonable suspicion". It is a burden of proof that justifies further investigation by an officer.

At this time in our system, it is not necessary for an officer to prove under penalty of law that reasonable suspicion has been evidenced by what they've witnessed.

I propose that before someone should be surveilled in any official and intentional way by a government, that there should be a Writ of Reasonable Suspicion issued by a judge allowing the surveillance. I propose that the Writ should describe the particular people or places to be surveilled and should contain facts that raise suspicion about a person.

This Writ would be distinct from a Warrant, because a Warrant is specifically a private place, a Writ of Reasonable Suspicion would be issued for public surveillance.

[originalpckelly]

7. Would you allow a police office to follow you around writing everything you did...

down on a notepad with precise details, when you had done nothing wrong? Wouldn't you ask the police officer what you had done? Wouldn't you expect an answer of some type?

Do you really want to live in a world where people can be tracked and spied on without for no reason?

Steak-outs are done to surveil suspects of a crime, they should not be done to people not accused of a crime.

[Jacobin]

3. So, the presumption of innocence evaporates with an eye witness?

I prefer our founding father's version, thank you very much.

[originalpckelly]

5. No, that's just bad wording that I'm still trying to work on.

If a cop sees a person with a gun shooting another person and the person being shot didn't do anything and is innocent, the cop should have the ability to take the person with the gun out. That's waving the right to a trial, the presumption of innocence, and a right to counsel all in one fell swoop. Hence the wording.

However, when there is no violent crime, the cop should not have the right to shoot someone or presume anything else but innocence.

[originalpckelly]

8. I edited it, does it make more sense now?