Do people that are hiding criminal acts have a right to privacy?

[kentuck]

Say, for example, that they have documents and records from many years of illegal activities. Do they have a right to keep those records private if there is a criminal investigation?

It seems to me that these people would lose the right to privacy if they are involved in a criminal operation? Once there is a criminal investigation, all those records, in regards to a criminal act, belong to the government, i.e., the people.

But, until there is that criminal investigation, especially search warrants, then those people have the same privacy rights as you and I?

This is why I question the argument of Michael Cohen and Donald Trump in regards to the documents seized in a legal raid, thru proper channels, by legal authorities.

Although they would maintain their privacy rights to all documents not related to criminal activity or an investigation, it would not be up to them to define the criminal act that they are charged with. That would be the job of our legal government authorities, in my opinion.

[PoliticAverse]

1. It is up to the government to decide what stays private or not - the judicial branch. n/t

[rsdsharp]

2. You might want to read the 4th amendment.

You know, that whole thing about the people having the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. . ."

[kentuck]

3. I think the key word is "unreasonable"?

Is it "unreasonable" to search someone that has committed a crime, once the government has gone thru all the proper channels for a search warrant?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. The entire text

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.

A person can't abduct , kill, mutilate , and put his victim in his refrigerator and use the Fourth Amendment as a shield to a lawful and reasonable search by the government.

[rsdsharp]

6. Nor did I ever say they could.

The original post made it seem that committing the criminal act should automatically void the right of privacy. It doesn't. The 4th amendment is not a shield against a valid warrant issued upon probable cause, anymore than the 5th amendment allows one to shield documents from a search warrant. But, the right to privacy does not automatically end with the commission of a crime. The government must meet the burden of showing that probable cause exists in order to breach it.

[Kablooie]

5. That's why we have warrants.

If a judge decides there is a likelihood of criminality your things can be searched.
By the way there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.
Just protection against unreasonable searches.

[rsdsharp]

9. By the way there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution."

There is no "explicit" right to privacy in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has found such a right in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other Constitutional protections. See Griswold v. Connecticut.

[Kablooie]

11. But Griswold specifies the right to marital privacy only.

This has been used in much broader contexts but I'm not sure it has been proven in court yet.
Clarence Thomas doesn't agree with Griswold also.

[rsdsharp]

12. Roe v. Wade used much the same rationale.

I don't give a damn what Thomas agrees or disagrees with.

[JayhawkSD]

7. It is not up to the government.

The judicial branch interprets the law, it does not "decide" it.

As to the question posed by the original post, of course people who commit crimes have the right to privacy. It's called the fifth amendment and the right not to have to testify against yourself. The fourth amendment does not say that innocent people are protected against search, it says that people are protected.

The premise you posit creates the supposition that proof of guilt precedes the search for evidence.

Just think of what you suggest. "You can have these documents, because they do not show evidence of a crime, but you cannot have these documents because they show that I committed bank fraud." How is that not testifying against one's self?

The government can demand a search warrant for a specific document, or a set of documents, that it knows or suspects it knows exists relating to a specific incident or subject, but only upon proving to a judge that the government has reasonable evidence that the document exists and that it proves what they believe it proves against the defendant.

A lawyer can be ordered to surrender any document which a client has given him to hold, and the same conditions apply to that order. A lawyer cannot be ordered to surrender anything that he has created while working in behalf of the client, called "work product," under any circumstances due to "attorney-client privilege."

[X_Digger]

8. If the government has probable cause, they can be searched.

But you might want to rethink how you're phrasing the question. Do people hiding criminal acts have a right to privacy? Yes.

Being involved in a criminal investigation, or even the target of such, does not immediately invalidate a person's right to privacy for any and all documents.

No search warrant is ever issued for blanket documents. It has to be specific to the suspected crime. The government can't go on a fishing expedition in a person's effects looking for evidence of a crime they don't know about.

[kentuck]

10. Thanks! I guess I could have worded it better.

Thanks for your clarification.

[lame54]

13. Without probable cause they do