|
THE PRESIDENT: What commas did
you want to change?
DELEGATE KIEFER: The language
originally was the "right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects against unreasonable searches,
seizures, interception of their communica-
tions, or other invasions of their privacy".
I would leave out the last two commas.
THE PRESIDENT: The last two mean-
ing the comma after "communications"?
DELEGATE KIEFER: And "privacy".
THE PRESIDENT: That I should think
would come by separate amendment, then.
Is there any further discussion?
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Just as a ques-
tion of information, Mr. President, does the
first half of the amendment or the question
as divided involve the title of the section
and the number of the section as proposed
by the Committee on Style?
THE PRESIDENT: I understood Dele-
gate Willoner's motion to go to the title to
restore the words "right to privacy".
Is this correct?
DELEGATE WILLONER: No, Mr.
Chairman.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then the
amendment would be considered as limited
to the portion of section 1.05 embraced in
lines 26 to 30, inclusive.
Is that correct, Delegate Willoner?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I had assumed the
contrary simply because the amendment
had restored the old title and I thought it
was what you wanted.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I did not
even notice that, frankly.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Is there
any further discussion?
Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chair-
man, members of the Convention, I hope
that the amendment of Delegate Willoner
will be voted down.
The recommendation of the Committee on
Style is a compromise between those of us
who wanted to outlaw completely all inter-
ceptions of communications and all inva-
|
sions of privacy and those who did not. If
it remains as it is in the Committee on
Style Report, I think the courts will know
what we have in mind and construe the
word "unreasonable" or "unreasonable in-
terceptions" with discretion.
This is a fundamental point, I think, in
the whole constitution, Mr. Chairman,
namely, whether we are actually, as in the
New York Constitution and many others,
going to outlaw completely interceptions
of communications, wire tapping, and other
invasions of privacy, or not, and I think
the Committee on Style has done a most
commendable job.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I hope that
the amendment will prevail. It seems to me
that it would be most unfortunate to have
built up in this State two bodies of law
dealing with the same subject matter, one
based on the federal decisions and the other
on state decisions.
The only way that we can keep the two
in accord, it seems to me, is to adopt the
precise language of the federal Constitu-
tion, as we have done in virtually all the
other sections.
We have not attempted, for example, to
rewrite the question about due process of
law and equal protection, and by adopting
those phrases we have adopted the gloss
put upon them by the Supreme Court.
Now, we know that this field of law is
in a particular state of flux. The recent
decision only last week by the Supreme
Court, where they extended the doctrine in
one direction but withdrew it in another
to some limited extent to permit action by
search through court procedures, illustrates
the point that I am trying to make.
It would be most unfortunate to have
two bodies of law in this field, and the
only way, it seems to me, that we can keep
in step completely with the Supreme Court
and the holdings of that body which con-
strue authoritatively the federal Constitu-
tion is to adopt the same language, and I
hope that this will be the conclusion of
this Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Presi-
dent, I would like to ask a question of
Chairman Kiefer, if I may, please.
|
