like pretty much everything else. there is no solid answer. there can be many different scenarios where this does and does not apply.
However I do know how good of a feeling it is when it DOES apply. lol I was pulled over by a police officer, who stereotyped me and assumed I did drugs or had them on me, he was correct that I did smoke weed at the time, however I did not have any on me, and it felt so good!!!
First of all, this only works if we can trust the government in general and law enforcement in particular to be unbiased, competent, with no hidden agendas, grudges or similar. That is completely unrealistic. In a democracy, everyone has the right (and arguably, to some degree, the duty) to mistrust the government.
Also, the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If it wants to infringe on my privacy and my general right to be left alone, then it has to better provide a very good reason for this, and follow a process designed to minimize the risk that I'm being treated unfairly.
Only in a perfect world, if the one doing the searching is 100% incorruptible.
Fairly sure everyone who was hung/burned at stake for witchcraft did no such thing. You can toss in the various "communists"/"traitors" during the McCarthy era. And I bet Saddam Hussein was just THRILLED when Iraq was invaded, despite letting in inspectors who never found WMDs.
I think it is stupid. It is an excuse given by people who want to intrude on your privacy. They can investigate me as much as they want, but without a search warrant I won't let them in because I have a right to privacy.
Also, it will be funny when they investigate me and find nothing.
It's poor logic. It doesn't take into account exploitation or guilt complexes. If anything it's a pitch used for exploitation, smooth talking to weasel your way into where you know damn well you have no business getting into. It's a sign that the assumed level of trust its logic relies on has already failed.
I would say that just because I have no particular need for a certain right at the moment, that does not mean I should waive it. And I don't care to have my life disrupted by allowing someone in to poke around in all my things.
People! This is a legalities-aside matter. I know the legalities already, I want people's opinions on the scenario and the statement. I had to write the thread out a couple times to explain it the right way, and I forgot to write that part back up. I apologize.