Discuss Ch9Part1 here

Tangential Question:

As I was reading Chapter 9, I had a lot of difficulty accepting the idea that trespass law was a necessary element to the Fourth Amendment. While I understand the common law argument that most cases involved trespass, and the precedent was wholly or at least mostly on the side of requiring a trespass, I cannot understand how this can be resolved with the phrase "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Trespass is territorial. It requires a physical space. How are "persons, ... papers, and effects" included in the definition of trespass? How can the Fourth Amendment be restricted to trespasses if those things are not a part of trespass? Finally, why does the entirety of Chapter 9 treat this conclusion of these justices as if it were fact? It seems to me that more emphasis should be laid upon the idea that those justices chose to focus on the word "houses" and not the other words in the list of things that should be secure. Perhaps I do not understand the meaning of trespass well enough. Either way, I hope somebody can explain this.

--LuYu?

With respect to the first part of your question,  all i know about this topic is what i've read in this chapter:

"[Prior to the Fourth Amendment] the legal protection against the invasion of privacy was trespass law. If someone entered your property and rifled through your stuff, that person violated your common law rights against trespass."

So I read LL as asserting that prior common law had already lumped the "territorial" aspect of trespass with "stuff"   that's there?

With respect to the second part, "Why does Chapter 9 treat this conclusion of these justices as if it were fact?":  I must again be missing something, cuz this seems a feature of ALL judicial opinion, not just Chap9:  saying it makes it so!  of course these interpretations get overturned, get narrowed, broadened, ...  but that's what all the fun is about, right?!

(I can't tell you how thrilled I am to have ANY other posting in this chapter!  so sorry if  I can't actually answer your question.  again, i'm a computer scientist, not a lawyer.)

rik