CLOSED
Going Fourth
September 11, 2025 1116 replies Error Margin: + – 3%
To better enforce smuggling regulations, British Crown did not grant Colonials protection against unwarranted search, seizure. John Adams championed such protection in 4th Amnd.
Q1. In July, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on the practices of federal immigration agents (ICE) in the Central District of California, ruling they were making stops without reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration.

The order barred agents from using race, language, location (such as car washes or day-labor sites), or type of work (meat packing, landscaping) as the sole basis for stopping and questioning people.

The judge determined these practices likely violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

On the basis of which of these alone do you think it should be legal for law enforcement to ask someone for proof of citizenship? (check all that apply)
(Image: In Mapp v Ohio (1961) SCOTUS ruled the 4th A prohibited use of evidence obtained without a warrant against mob affiliate Dollree Mapp)
overall
custom
male
female
rep
ind
dem
18-29
30-44
45-64
65+

Race - yes

30%
36%
25%
63%
15%
3%
18%
30%
35%
28%
30%

No

65%
60%
70%
28%
78%
95%
82%
66%
57%
65%
65%

Language spoken - yes

37%
44%
31%
78%
23%
4%
36%
31%
43%
37%
37%

No

57%
51%
64%
15%
72%
94%
64%
63%
51%
59%
57%

Location - yes

39%
46%
33%
76%
25%
9%
36%
37%
44%
33%
39%

No

56%
48%
62%
15%
70%
89%
64%
53%
51%
60%
56%

Type of work - yes

33%
38%
28%
68%
22%
5%
28%
33%
37%
31%
33%

No

61%
56%
65%
22%
72%
93%
72%
60%
56%
63%
61%

Not sure

2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
0%
3%
2%
1%
2%

Don't care

0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Q2. The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to lift the restraining order, which the Court did on Monday.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote "ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion, but it can be a relevant factor" and suggested the ICE practices when taken together had a "fair prospect of success" identifying illegal immigrants.

Do you think that using a combination of race, location, language, and place of work to determine whom to ask for papers violates protection against unwarranted search?
(Image: In Katz v US (1967) SCOTUS ruled 4th A protection extends beyond home to anywhere person has reasonable expectation of privacy, including this public phone booth )
overall
custom
male
female
rep
ind
dem
18-29
30-44
45-64
65+

Does not violate protections

42%
51%
34%
86%
27%
7%
43%
36%
49%
38%
42%

Does violate protections

53%
42%
62%
9%
64%
89%
46%
59%
46%
59%
53%

Not sure

5%
6%
3%
4%
8%
4%
11%
5%
3%
3%
5%

Don't care

1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
Q3. The Supreme Court ruling means ICE can continue the practice while the underlying lawsuit continues in lower courts. The case will likely eventually return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the legality of the factors ICE is using to ask for papers.

Do you think the ICE using a combination of race, location, type of work, and language spoken will ultimately be declared legal to warrant asking for papers?
(Image: In Brendin v California (2007) SCOTUS ruled the 4th A protects passengers in a car during traffic stop from unwarranted search )
overall
custom
male
female
rep
ind
dem
18-29
30-44
45-64
65+

Court will find it to be legal

72%
76%
69%
90%
61%
59%
71%
78%
72%
66%
72%

Illegal

15%
11%
20%
2%
22%
25%
3%
10%
18%
24%
15%

Not sure

12%
13%
12%
8%
15%
16%
27%
11%
9%
10%
12%

Don't care

0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Fourth Amendment : 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.

June 2025

Do you approve ICE agents go to places where undocumented migrants are likely to be such as mandatory court appearances, places of work (certain farms, garment factories), or places to look for work (Home Depot parking lots)?

43% Yes, 47% No

May 2022

Police arrested a woman on a felony property charge based on evidence from her DNA. She had given the DNA sample previously, when reporting a sexual assault, and investigators had collected it to help identify her attacker. The district attorney's office dropped charges in the case, citing a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Were they right to drop the case?

56% yes, 40% no

 

Topics
Word Puzzle Picture Puzzle
Loading