 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |  Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |
[edit] Article history
While monitoring "polydactyly" I spotted an anon listed Daniela Cicarelli there. While perusing the latter article to see if the addition was valid I wikilinked "expectation of privacy" in it and noticed that the wikilink actually redirects to a wrong page. At first I re-redirected it to privacy law, but immediately detected that the latter article sucks, so I had to write my own stub here despite being an utter laymman in the legal area. Laudak (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Globalize
It seems imperative to me that the beginning of this page should emphasise that this is exclusively about the US. --The Lesser Merlin (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the globalization template and tossed in a few words to the effect that this is USA-only. If there are other countries that have a similar concept, it would be interesting to see the differences and similarities compared. And if not, then that very fact could be worth mentioning. Carl T (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since this appears to be a US-only subject, there is no need for the {{globalize}} template. If the concept exists in other countries' legal systems, then that information can be added and the template re-included as necessary. 69.74.234.178 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course the the notions of privacy and its expectation exists in other world. Laudak (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think that this can be or should be globalized. The legal test of a reasonable expectation of privacy is litigative tool that has brought to the US protections of privacy (such as the secrecy of correspondence) that in many (if not most) other countries are guaranteed by specific parts of their respective constitutions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. - What remains of the old intro is crap. The law does not guarantee a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Litigation tests if an expectation is reasonable in order to see, if the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK conflict
Although the DYK teaser 6/11/08 contrasted legal expectation of privacy in a phone booth and in a car, there's nothing at all about cars in this article (there should be: searches of cars constitute a major part of privacy and search law). Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I removed it as not supported by the reference, and from an unreliable source (also removed it from todays DYK because it was no longer in the article). It's fundamentally wrong to say that there is no privacy in cars; a great deal of search and seizure law is regarding the rights of suspects in a vehicle.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Unreliable source" - I beg to disagree: the book is written by attorneys and provides law references. Phrase restored. If you have something interesting to write about seizure in vehicles, please add a wikipedia article. Laudak (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Has Anybody Read This Section
With respect to the English language?
-
- == Canada ==
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Providing everyone within Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure)
- What does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeyMoose (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dunno. Appears to be random garbage. The globalize tag on this article is ridiculous as the U.S. is the only legal system that actually has extensive case law relating to the reasonable expectation of privacy. Other legal systems have a "right to privacy," which is fundamentally different. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
