[notch656a]

>Because it's not a search - you're consenting to it as part of something you are doing that is not a right (getting a mortgage, getting a home). The moment the scenario shifts from "this is done to you" to "this is a prerequisite to a thing you are doing" then you have basically no rights.

It is something done to you. It doesn't matter whether you and the lender consent to it happening or not, the law _requires_ it. It's a search of your 'papers' at behest of government. Just because the end goal is elective doesn't mean 4th amendment is bypassed. For instance, buying a bottle of water isn't a 'right' but electing to do so doesn't allow the government to inspect your bank account, even by proxy (by requiring the seller).

[dibujante]

You are confused. You can decline to have your papers searched by declining to participate in the activity. Therefore, no matter how unfair, it is not forcible. If the government passed a law forbidding the sale of water to people who did not consent to a search, that would also be lawful. The Constitution does not forbid bad laws.

[Spivak]

The law isn’t so cut and dry like that. The court would absolutely rule that since water is an unavoidable necessity that this constitutes an unreasonable search. But I agree that if challenged they would be fine with a search when applying for a mortgage.

[dibujante]

Yes, there would be a gradient somewhere. If that law extended to the point where you couldn't get utility water without a background check, some judge would find cause to throw it out mainly because of how silly it was. But on the other hand the water content of even a mildly alcoholic beverage doesn't make showing ID an unreasonable search. There are lots of ways the government can twist your arm into a "search" through this opt-in approach.

[arthurcolle]

> would be lawful

yeah ok until a court challenge occurs

[dibujante]

Good luck with your court case concerning whether or not the government can require your real details to be on your driver's license.