I completely understand the constitutionality of privacy, especially how it applies to the overreach of the crown in the 18th century.
Im just saying that some of the freedoms we enjoy have consequencs.
WQe dont seem to mind to much when we trample the rights of Gang members when they do sweeps and association penalties right?
I mean on a philosophical level, we say...oh, that is wrong, but on a practical level we are happy to see a bunch of jerks get what they have coming.
If a Police officer ignores right to search laws and enters a home and finds a child victim being molested, should he excuse himself and ignore what he saw?
Its a slippery slope,I understand that holding the line is the only way to keep from an avalanche,Im just speaking from personal experiences and the people Ive known that have been the most secretive,wind up being the ones up to no good.
I don't know how gang laws work, but if they are peacefully assembling, then they are fine. But the First Amendment only protects peaceful assembling. If they are killing people or committing crimes then that isn't peaceful.
If an officer goes into the home and finds a child being molested, then sadly yes he should leave. We have rules and laws for a reason. The exception is never good and almost always terrible. But if you start carving out exceptions here and there, then soon you no longer have the rule of law. What you get is a rule by situation and that is never going to end well. That will lead to a tyranny or dictatorship and a situation where we fear our government.
It really doesn't matter if people who are secretive are the ones up to no good. It needs to be proved the right way. Breaking the rules is what the criminals do, not what the cops should be doing.