4th Amendment

With Cell Phone Record Case on SCOTUS Horizon, Originalist Analysis on IV Amendment Is Helpful

Mark Fitzgibbons, CNS News

As odd as this may sound in the age of cell phones and digital data, this case may end up being resolved by reviewing the original public meaning of the Fourth Amendment and the right of security against government intrusion. A closer look at the Fourth Amendment through original meaning will expose that many searches conducted by the administrative state are as harmful to the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment as the general warrants used in colonial America.

Inherently Unreasonable Administrative Subpoenas Advance Police State, Violate the Constitution

Mark J. Fitzgibbons, CNS News

It may be that use of institutionalized violations of the Fourth Amendment are far more prevalent than the relative quantity of the general warrants in their day. Wise and constitutionally principled judges since at least the 1600s, however, have recognized the dangers of the coercive and extortionate nature of search power unbridled from probable cause determined in advance by the judgment of neutral judicial officers.

Judgeless Administrative Subpoenas Are An Enemy Of Free Speech

Mark J. Fitzgibbons, Daily Caller

As long as attorneys general or even federal bureaucrats have the power to issue their own warrants, they will abuse that power to target the rights of their ideological opponents. It is time to protect the First Amendment by restoring the Fourth Amendment, and eliminate administrative subpoenas.

The Unconstitutionality of the Exxon Subpoena

Philip Hamburger, LibertyLawSite.org

The difficulty is that conclusions about climate change, on either side of the question, are often difficult to distinguish from political opinion. Although the truth about the climate may lie in complex empirical data, such data is always open to dispute, and the climate has become a highly contested political controversy. The attorney general’s subpoena therefore looks disturbingly like harassment for dissenting scientific and political opinion.

New York ‘Climate Speech’ Investigation Unconstitutional Even Under King George III

Mark Fitzgibbons, CNS News

The notions that those with power may want to criminalize speech and commerce of those with whom they disagree ideologically, and favor cronies, are older than America. The Fourth Amendment requires oath and affirmation of probable cause that some law may have been violated before warrants may be issued. The separation of powers inherent in the warrant process dating back centuries requires neutral judges, and unilateral subpoenas are unconstitutional.

4th Amendment for me, but not for thee

Mark J. Fitzgibbons, Esq., The American Thinker

When government wants emails from those on the left without a warrant from a judge, that’s a violation of privacy protected by the 4th Amendment. When government wants emails from someone who disagrees with positions of the left, well, it’s irresponsible to protect privacy. Get it?

Lois Lerner's 'Partners' and Her ‘Mini-Me’

Conservatives who now know about the lawless, arrogant ex-federal bureaucrat lawyer Lois Lerner may wish to know that her “farm team” meets at the Washington Marriott Georgetown October 5 – 7.

State Politicians and Bureaucrats Violate Rights & Attack ‘Nongovernmental Democracy’

Some regulators believe their "probable cause" required by the Fourth Amendment is merely that they are regulators.  And, when they are questioned about their actual legal authority and grounds, these regulators often turn arrogant and bullying instead of providing notice and transparency. The National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO) could take a stand for transparency and constitutional government if it adopts resolutions proposed in this article by our colleague constitutional lawyer Mark J. Fitzgibbons.

Conservatives not understanding the Fourth Amendment spells trouble‏

Mark Fitzgibbons, American Thinker

The Fourth Amendment applies to business records. Conservatives can’t get lost in a faux concept that government can get records ("papers") to investigate ("gather information").  That's completely contrary to the very purposes of the Fourth Amendment protecting the security of our property, privacy, and thoughts. If "our side" doesn't understand these basic Fourth Amendment concepts designed to protect against big-government, totalitarian police statism, we're in trouble.

Want To Protect Your Privacy? Conservative Organizations Should Sign Onto This Supreme Court Brief

Ultra-leftwing, Planned Parenthood supporter California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, is telling nonprofit organizations they can’t speak to donors in her state unless they fork over the names and addresses of their top donors to her so she can investigate them and your organization if she wants.

Sotomayor's 4th Amendment Time Bomb

Mark J. Fitzgibbons, Esq., American Thinker

A painfully slim 5 – 4 ruling this week by the Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Patel is being greeted by many privacy advocates almost with the ebullience of Gene Kelly’s heal-clicking dance in Singin’ in the Rain. But privacy advocates seem to be suffering from a bit of Stockholm Syndrome. Joyful about the court’s barely holding the line on two issues, most have yet to acknowledge how Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s majority opinion is also a blueprint for a major power grab for the administrative police state.

Conservatives Urge Senator Lee on 4th Amendment Protections

One hundred conservatives from across the country sent Senator Mike Lee a letter urging him to abolish the use of “judge-less” administrative subpoenas to obtain emails of Americans.

Senator Lee: Protect Our Privacy! Judgeless Warrants Violate The 4th Amendment

The Honorable Mike Lee
361A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20002

Re:  Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015

Dear Senator Lee:

Why Conservatives Need to Focus on the 4th Amendment

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important arrows in the quiver against bullying big government.  Conservatives have a window to influence how the Fourth Amendment will be defined in ways that protect freedoms, yet maintain security, just as the Founders envisioned the purposes of government.

Conservatives Can Win With 4th Amendment Reforms

Today, with the unprecedented level of attacks on religious liberty, free speech, and free markets, Americans need the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has been shredded, but fortunately for the preservation of liberty under the Consitution help may be on the way.

4th Amendment fight from Virginia hits Capitol Hill


A move in Virginia to rein in government powers and bolster the Fourth Amendment – and halt a perceived emerging police state – may have stalled in committee, but supporters aren’t giving up and have now turned to Capitol Hill for redress, pushing for a constitutional correction. “We now live in a soft police state because the courts have weakened the Fourth Amendment so much,” said Mark Fitzgibbons, a constitutional attorney and leading voice behind Virginia’s SJ 302 and HJ 578, the “‘Fourth Amendment’ for the 21st Century” introduced into the General Assembly a few weeks ago.

Judge-less Administrative Warrants: The Prototype of a Police State

Mark Fitzgibbons, Special to CNSNews

Lawless and lawbreaking uses of warrants called “administrative subpoenas” by government officials aren’t always as flagrantly devious as a recent Drug Enforcement Agency case involving the digital currency Bitcoin. The question not being asked in the reporting of this case is why does a policing agency such as the DEA have the authority in the first place to issue warrants without showing probable cause before a judge, as required under the Fourth Amendment?

A Constitutional Amendment to Protect Virginians’ Data and Pastures

This is the first installment of a sentence-by-sentence explanation of the proposed “Fourth Amendment for the 21st 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.

An Ivory Tower Fourth Amendment View to Be Ignored

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' 21st Century Fourth Amendment (HJ 578), which is designed to add clarity for citizens, law enforcement, lawyers and judges on unreasonable search and seizure.

Why It’s Time for a 21st Century Fourth Amendment in Virginia

Virginia Delegate Rich Anderson of Prince William County is a real patriot. Anderson has introduced HJ 578, an amendment to Virginia’s Constitution to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.