The brick/suitcase example doesn’t make any sense without attachment, so I read it into the hypo. But any physical contact inconsistent with ownership can be a trespass. You can’t go around putting bricks into peoples’ trucks either!
Trespass isn’t expressly mentioned in the constitution, but it is one that is at least consistent with the text. The 4A lists several kinds of private property, and prohibits unreasonable “search” or “seizure” of that property. What is an “search” or “seizure” of private property? The structure of the text makes clear that it is a wrongful intrusion by a government agent onto property. What do we call wrongful intrusions onto private property? Generally, it’s trespass.
“Privacy,” on the other hand, doesn’t fit the textual formula at all. The text says nothing about “privacy.” The contemporaneous debate said nothing about privacy. Saying that the fourth amendment is about “protecting privacy” totally abandons the textual nexus between a “search” and some private property. It is in fact an example of fallacious reasoning. It is the conclusion that because a “search” is one way to invade someone’s privacy, that anything that invades someone’s privacy is a “search.”
Trespass isn’t expressly mentioned in the constitution, but it is one that is at least consistent with the text. The 4A lists several kinds of private property, and prohibits unreasonable “search” or “seizure” of that property. What is an “search” or “seizure” of private property? The structure of the text makes clear that it is a wrongful intrusion by a government agent onto property. What do we call wrongful intrusions onto private property? Generally, it’s trespass.
“Privacy,” on the other hand, doesn’t fit the textual formula at all. The text says nothing about “privacy.” The contemporaneous debate said nothing about privacy. Saying that the fourth amendment is about “protecting privacy” totally abandons the textual nexus between a “search” and some private property. It is in fact an example of fallacious reasoning. It is the conclusion that because a “search” is one way to invade someone’s privacy, that anything that invades someone’s privacy is a “search.”