Reply #29: and amazingly ...

[iverglas]

"but doesn't there need to be a probable cause determination before a court can order hair and blood samples seized? Wouldn't it be an unreasonable search and seizure, especially given the fundamental privacy issue?"

... the same applies in the UK. Of course there has to be some valid justification (which will be determined by the courts on a challenge) for any search or seizure undertaken, in both places.

Anybody here know anything, anything at all, about rights and rights protection anywhere outside the US? Maybe even in the UK, since that's what so many are expressing opinions about?

One could always try reading the Human Rights Act, 1998.

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

1. - (1) In this Act "the Convention rights" means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in-

(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention,

(b) Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and

(c) Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol,

as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention.

(2) Those Articles are to have effect for the purposes of this Act subject to any designated derogation or reservation (as to which see sections 14 and 15).

...

3. - (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

(2) This section-

(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;

(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and

(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.

4. - (1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right.


(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.

...

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm#aofs


That, of course, is just a recent expression and codification of rights that have long been recognized in their basic form. Where *do* you people imagine that the statement of those rights in your constitution came from?

Now, the thing is, in order to understand that Act, you have to read and understand the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK statute incorporates by reference.

So here ya go:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1

The Convention, like the Canadian Charter, expressly guarantees "security of the person". The Canadian Charter includes the right against unreasonble search and seizure separately, but my assumption is that the right to security of the person and privacy (also included in the European Convention) would pretty much cover it. And I have no doubt that any Brit to whom one proposed that his/her executive authorities (police) could just start searching closets and plucking hairs at will might think that one was quite nuts.


For those needing history lessons:

http://www.billofrights.com/

The Bill of Rights draws influence and inspiration from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and various later efforts in England and America to expand fundamental rights. George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights formed the basis of the amendments which comprise the bill.

Magna Carta ... England ... June 15, 1215 ... nearly 800 years ago, long before Europeans set foot in Virginia ... in which King John said:

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

Sounds like the dictionary definition of a prohibition on unreasonable (or actually, any) search and seizure.

Another handy, if unauthoritative, summary:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/declaration_independence/bill.htm

The origins of many of the other rights and liberties contained in the Bill of Rights can be found in the English tradition, dating as far back as Magna Carta (1215), a document that marked the first step toward constitutional law in England. For example, the clause in the Fifth Amendment, which declares that individuals cannot be deprived of their "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is rooted in Chapter 39 of Magna Carta.

England's Petition of Right (1628) and Bill of Rights (1689) further expanded individual liberties and placed increased limitations on the ruler's powers and authority. English liberties and rights, such as trial by jury and protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure, were, in fact, included in the charters establishing the American colonies. They were considered to be the "rights of Englishmen."

Me, I just never cease to be amazed at what some people know nothing about but feel compelled to express opinions about nonetheless ...

.