Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SnakeDoctor

Why bother with a judge rubber-stamping a warrant then? If the officer has reason to think you should pony up, then why bother with a judge?


43 posted on 12/30/2010 1:46:41 PM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: sam_paine

The involvement of the judge is Constitutionally required to satisfy the 4th Amendment. A warrant is simply a judicial recognition of probable cause — it is an independent review of the impending search. The officer doesn’t need to prove that the guy is drunk ... he simply needs to show that he has good reason to think the guy is drunk. If the officer sees probable cause, and the judge agrees ... the search is Constitutional.

Despite the activity of the ACLU, the Constitution is not exclusively intended as a list of technicalities for people to get away with criminal activity.

It is a control on government activity. When the government meets the criteria set out by the Constitution, the government has an interest in enforcing the law.

SnakeDoc


51 posted on 12/30/2010 1:54:06 PM PST by SnakeDoctor ("They made it evident to every man [...] that human beings are many, but men are few." -- Herodotus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson