3 ms·

I've always felt like the intent of a warrant was to prove to ME that the police were authorized to search my property. I'm thinking back to when people had to

I've always felt like the intent of a warrant was to prove to ME that the police were authorized to search my property. I'm thinking back to when people had to physically show up and be allowed entry into your estate. If my feeling on warrants match up with the true intention of the law (as it was originally written) then no-knock warrants are suspect as well as any kind of secret warrant to tap your phone/computer. I think even with warrants we still have an issue, because what's really stopping them from getting a warrant in this day and age?

mattnewton 10y ago
The intent of the warrant is to provide a check on the power of the executive branch, where hopefully the jusdge's incentives are divorced enough from the police's so that they can make a decision that is in the best interests of society and not just the police.
pdkl95 10y ago
The 4th Amendment doesn't just require "a warrant". The English government was using "writs of assistance", a type of general warrant that granted broad powers. As a protection against that type of easily-abused power, the founders created a set of requirements that limit the scope of allowed warrants. ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. While a judge might deny some extremely bad requests for a warrant, the point isn't about a judge denying warrants or proving anything to anyone. That kind of legal arguing can happen later in an actual court. Instead, warrants - as allowed under the 4th Amendment - establish the limits of power. The violation of personal rights is allowed, because of specific reason ("probable cause"), in a particular place, limited to specified people or things. These limitations slow down the application of power and (hypothetically) create opportunities to fight back when authority is exceeded. > no-knock warrants I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant. > secret warrant That's may be a problem, but it may depend on the specifics. > what's really stopping them from getting a warrant Generally nothing, but that's the wrong question. If police are making many requests for specific warrants, that's the warrant system working as intended. However, playing word games to pretend wiretapping everybody isn't "seizing" data until an agent looks at it is exactly the type of general warrant that is banned by the 4th Amendment.
- fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
  >I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant. Almost every no knock is executed in such a way that 'proper' targeting is impossible. A warrant cannot magically excuse police from their improper conduct. It took a deaf dumb blind and ignorant bench for that.

mattnewton 10y ago

The intent of the warrant is to provide a check on the power of the executive branch, where hopefully the jusdge's incentives are divorced enough from the police's so that they can make a decision that is in the best interests of society and not just the police.

pdkl95 10y ago

The 4th Amendment doesn't just require "a warrant". The English government was using "writs of assistance", a type of general warrant that granted broad powers. As a protection against that type of easily-abused power, the founders created a set of requirements that limit the scope of allowed warrants. ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. While a judge might deny some extremely bad requests for a warrant, the point isn't about a judge denying warrants or proving anything to anyone. That kind of legal arguing can happen later in an actual court. Instead, warrants - as allowed under the 4th Amendment - establish the limits of power. The violation of personal rights is allowed, because of specific reason ("probable cause"), in a particular place, limited to specified people or things. These limitations slow down the application of power and (hypothetically) create opportunities to fight back when authority is exceeded. > no-knock warrants I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant. > secret warrant That's may be a problem, but it may depend on the specifics. > what's really stopping them from getting a warrant Generally nothing, but that's the wrong question. If police are making many requests for specific warrants, that's the warrant system working as intended. However, playing word games to pretend wiretapping everybody isn't "seizing" data until an agent looks at it is exactly the type of general warrant that is banned by the 4th Amendment.

fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
>I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant. Almost every no knock is executed in such a way that 'proper' targeting is impossible. A warrant cannot magically excuse police from their improper conduct. It took a deaf dumb blind and ignorant bench for that.