Prayer Request:
Another relative is going to be dead before this time next week due to a rare kind of lymphoma which is incurable. I ask therefore that you please keep Jenny Riley in your prayers along with her immediate family.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches:
(Aka "One From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My interlocuter's words will be in blue font.
I believe your reading of the 4th [Amendment] is incorrect. If you look at the text the first clause, about unreasonable searches, it is an independent clause and can function as a complete sentence. The following part, about warrants, is also an independent clause. This means that searches are grammatically and logically distinct from the issuance of warrants. A search, in other words, can be reasonable and warrantless, but a warrant requires certain standards.
This is certainly a feasible theory you have. I should note that my intention of that posting was not to deal with all facets of what is and is not an acceptable search in conformity with constitutional principles. Essentially, I did not intend to say anything more than if the four provisions in the body of the amendment are met, the argument for a constitutional violation when raiding a building to search and seize cannot be credibly maintained. That is all.{1}
I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly I think there have been a number of cases in which SCOTUS has ruled that some warrantless searches are reasonable.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on a lot of issues where one wonders what they are smoking in the judges chambers (to put it mildly). Need I remind you of Kelo{2}??? When the justices can miss the boat that badly on constitutional so-called "interpretation", one should be hesitant if the judgments you talk about were handed down by a Supreme Court with the same justice configuration as the one that muffed that ruling. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} Upon reviewing that text, I see that the phrasing I used lent itself to the interpretation my interlocuter placed on it. For that reason, I have tweaked the text slightly in a few spots to clarify my original intentions and thank the writer for bringing it to my attention.
{2} Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (circa June 29, 2005)
(Aka "One From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My interlocuter's words will be in blue font.
I believe your reading of the 4th [Amendment] is incorrect. If you look at the text the first clause, about unreasonable searches, it is an independent clause and can function as a complete sentence. The following part, about warrants, is also an independent clause. This means that searches are grammatically and logically distinct from the issuance of warrants. A search, in other words, can be reasonable and warrantless, but a warrant requires certain standards.
This is certainly a feasible theory you have. I should note that my intention of that posting was not to deal with all facets of what is and is not an acceptable search in conformity with constitutional principles. Essentially, I did not intend to say anything more than if the four provisions in the body of the amendment are met, the argument for a constitutional violation when raiding a building to search and seize cannot be credibly maintained. That is all.{1}
I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly I think there have been a number of cases in which SCOTUS has ruled that some warrantless searches are reasonable.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on a lot of issues where one wonders what they are smoking in the judges chambers (to put it mildly). Need I remind you of Kelo{2}??? When the justices can miss the boat that badly on constitutional so-called "interpretation", one should be hesitant if the judgments you talk about were handed down by a Supreme Court with the same justice configuration as the one that muffed that ruling. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} Upon reviewing that text, I see that the phrasing I used lent itself to the interpretation my interlocuter placed on it. For that reason, I have tweaked the text slightly in a few spots to clarify my original intentions and thank the writer for bringing it to my attention.
{2} Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (circa June 29, 2005)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)