4 ms·
Consider that because judges take seriously their duty to reject insufficient warrant requests, law enforcement typically only makes strong requests. The gover
by marcoperaza 8y ago
Consider that because judges take seriously their duty to reject insufficient warrant requests, law enforcement typically only makes strong requests. The government is a repeat player and has every reason to build trust with judges.
Also consider that the internal policies of the DOJ are often more restrictive than the restrictions applied by the courts. The government has good reason to avoid testing the boundaries of the law, lest they generate unfavorable precedents that tie their hands down the line.
- mchannon 8y agoConsider the converse of what you said: Because law enforcement typically only makes strong requests, judges take seriously their duty to reject insufficient warrant requests. I hope that illustrates the folly of both statements. The government has nothing to lose by testing the boundaries of the law, because there are so many undefined and underdefined boundaries. An unfavorable precedent every now and then is a very small price to pay, particularly when playing fast and loose with the rules lets them bring so many more cases. It's like saying one daily speeding ticket resulting in a warning will stop people from speeding on a busy urban interstate.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- snowwrestler 8y agoThis is not something you can reason about from first principles. The parent is talking about how the DoJ actually operates, not a theoretical construct. That said, most warrants to collect evidence are not issued to the DoJ, they are issued to state and local prosecutors, who are often more aggressive than DoJ is (in part because so many AGs are elected, IMO).