Secure in your papers and affects means that they can't just go rifling through them. But if I have a bag in my car, and cops want to search it for drugs or weapons, then that's okay. So we've passed the point of the 4th having any legitimate meaning.
Most of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights have been effectively nullified. At this point they're better seen as test cases for when we need a revolution, rather than functional law.
Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best.
Picking a lock falls into break and enter, regardless of the name of the charge.
Windows, and even walls offer little security in modern houses too! I can literally punch my way through vinyl siding, with chipboard under that, through to drywall.
> Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best.
False, opening or door window is sufficient for the breaking part of burglary at common law, locks.are irrelevant. If locks are relevant, it's not because of common law.
There's no universal 'common law'. Each jurisdiction has its own, diverged "branch" of common-law, each with its own peculiarities.
Primarily, based upon its history.
And as the legislative branch passes laws, they effect the power of, modify the scope of, or render inert many such judicial decisions.
This is why I said "many common law jurisdictions', not just 'common law'.
One vital part of common law, is intent.
A door with a lock on it? And you pick it / disable it? It is going to be exceptionally difficult to prove benign intent here.
An unlocked door? Well...
Are your friends 'breaking and entering' by opening the door and walking in? Again, intent here...
Did you knock, and "thought you heard something"? Again, intent.
There have been many court cases, but as an example, for a while, in Ontario, Canada, it was common for police to knock at the door, and simply enter saying "Oh, I knocked.. but no one heard me."
I kid you not.
But let's take a step back here, and give you an example as to why this becomes more difficult with an unlocked door.
Part of the issue here is, many houses have a covered, 'cold room' prior to the house proper. Yet, this is still part of the house. It has a roof and walls, a door. It is simply part of the house.
In many colder climates, you enter this area. This is fully expected. You're now sheltered, but it isn't heated. When the owner opens the "door proper", blowing snow and wind won't enter their house. Ergo, to knock, you must approach the "real door" of the house, inside this room, and knock.
It is also not immediately clear if the "very outside door" you are accessing, is a cold room, or the actual door of the house. How do you discover one way or the other? Why you open the door, and enter!
Intent is primary here. Entry into an unlocked house does not prove intent, as there is no 'forced entry'.
One thing ; in Canada, the police lay charges. A person need not even make a complaint, for the police to act. Nor does a person insisting that the police not charge someone, indicate this will happen! An example here ; the police discover assault of some form. They only need evidence, not willingness to 'charge'.
Now take this legal position, and assign it to people entering houses. Your friend enters your house, as he always does, without even knocking.
According to you, that's 'break and enter', yes? What differentiates here?
Why, intent of course!
Intent is primary, and a locked door creates a very strong validation of intent. An unlocked? Zero validation.
you are suggesting that commercially available and mass produced locks are easily defeatable. I agree. but that was not my point at all.
you see, I am legally allowed to blow my life's savings installing a lock that is secure - if I so choose. and if I do, I'm not legally required to resister the key with the police department... just in case they need to serve a warrant later on. nor are lock manufactures required to make the key available to police for each lock they sell.
i have a right to be secure in my papers and affects.
okay, this bill emphasizes that police need a warrant, but glosses over the bit about actual security.
administrative controls aren't security. That's why we haven't outlawed locks on the front door...