“The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511(1961).

 Whether the [4th] Amendment was in fact violated is ..a .. question that requires determining if the seizure was reasonable. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 62 (1992)

“[T] he central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment … the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).

392 U.S. 1, 10 “The heart of the Fourth Amendment… is a severe requirement of specific justification for any intrusion upon protected personal security, coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce upon the agents of the State the commands of the Constitution.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 10,11 (1968)

[506 U.S. 56, 70] The construction and constitutionality (of criminal marijuana laws) laws should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process test. …It is more "explicit textual source of constitutional protection" over the "more generalized notion of `substantive due process.'"….The Fourth Amendment's specific protection for "houses, papers, and [506 U.S. 56, 71] effects," rather than the general protection of property in the Due Process Clause. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70 (1992).

“Reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

The Fourth Amendment's provides specific protection for ‘houses, papers, and effects.’ ” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70(1992

The Fourth Amendment is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. ….. ." Soldal v. Cook County,506 U.S. 56, 61 , (1992)

(a) …..this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the [4th] Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. ….Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 56 (1992)

This court previous cases “hold that seizures of property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning of the Amendment has taken place.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 68 (1992).

"at the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home." Soldal v. Cook County,506 U.S. 56, 61 , (1992).

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, ….."protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 2 (1968)."what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) >[364 U.S. 206, 222] [116 U.S. 616, 641]

A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference Fourth Amendment found easy acceptance in the Supreme Court Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616, 627

[392 U.S. 1, 13] It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person.

=============

394 U.S. 165, 175 The security of persons and property remains a fundamental value Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 175 (1969).

374 U.S. 23, 30 We specifically held in Mapp that this constitutional prohibition is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, " by the application of the same constitutional standard prohibiting "unreasonable [374 U.S. 23, 31] searches and seizures." Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30 (1963), >[367 U.S. 643, 655]

This inestimable right of [392 U.S. 1, 9] personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs. For as this Court has always recognized, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

The definition of reasonable by the Supreme Court of the United States is simply this Reasonable laws are to protect you from me and me from you. The deprivation of individual rights to privacy, to liberty and to property must be reasonable.

It is reasonable for the police to seize marijuana because it is illegal. This is not justifiction for a criminal law.

The question is whether it is reasonable to criminalize the private cultivation, possession and use of marijuana which allows the police to seize your person and property for violating the marijuana laws. Are the marijuana laws reasonable? The State has the constitutional authority to make reasonable laws.