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.
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)