Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs
Amendment IVThe 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.I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize" not considered unconstitutional?  Has it just not been challenged that far yet, or is there a legal rationale that I have not heard yet?