3 ms·

> I think the Court erred in this. But it was far from wanton judicial activism. I didn't say it was. I said that about Gonzalez v. Raich. Terry though is a pe

> I think the Court erred in this. But it was far from wanton judicial activism. I didn't say it was. I said that about Gonzalez v. Raich. Terry though is a perfect example of how legislating from the bench is basically unavoidable. The constitution doesn't outline what a search without a warrant should look like. The court could say, we don't care leave it to statute. But likely any state statute would be challenged on the grounds that it was permissive beyond what is "reasonable". So they'll just get the problem back in another form. They could say, this needs an amendment but what is to be done in the meantime? So they are stuck. They either have to say, "no warrantless search is "reasonable". Or they have to start defining a standard under which a warrantless search is "reasonable". Either way, they are effectively writing law. They have to take non-specific language and interpret it to a specific incident. It is exactly the kind of canard they faced in the case linked here. Bullets aren't a literal search or seizure but obviously the constitution doesn't intend to allow a cop to shoot you with impunity because that's not a "search or seizure". Shootings have to be governed by the "reasonable searches or seizures" doctrine cause there isn't anything else. If this case is activism as the poster I replied to implied then so is Terry. The call just came down on the other side this time. It's not way out there to ask a cop to think, "there might be multiple reasons why this person is speeding away from me now and it is not 'reasonable' to assume they are armed and dangerous and need to be shot." And grouping the polices's right to use deadly force under the 4th amendment isn't either. It's my opinion that neither this case, nor Terry is particularly "activist". > Of course the Courts aren't objective. Law isn't code. That doesn't mean we can strive for them to be, as much as they can be. This is exactly my point. We can ask for Some people are just going to call every decision they don't like activist. But the implications from a case like Terry or this one are clear; judges have to engage in something a little more than literal readings of legal text.

nybble41 6y ago
> The constitution doesn't outline what a search without a warrant should look like. Only because a search without a warrant is by definition not backed by any legal authority, and without legal authority the only way they get to do the search is with the owner's permission. A "search warrant" is nothing more or less than legal authorization to perform the search—whatever form that authorization might take. Any law authorizing a search would itself be a warrant (though perhaps an unconstitutional one), which implies that a law authorizing "warrantless searches" would be self-contradictory.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  > Only because a search without a warrant is by definition not backed by any legal authority Except this is exactly what Terry v. Ohio is about. It defines "stop and frisk" type searches under "reasonable suspicion" as constitutional despite the fact that the officer does not get a warrant.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    That just means the court itself issued a warrant by granting permission to perform the search, whether they called it that or not. However, that warrant doesn't meet the constitutional requirements—it lacks probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and doesn't define the specific places to be searched or items to be seized—which means the court itself violated the Constitution in issuing it.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      Uh yeah, I agree that Terry is a bad decision. That's pretty much how I started this thread. I think it's pretty semantical though to debate whether the court made a bad decision because they were defining a warrantless search or because they were defining warranted searches that don't meet the requirements set by the constitution.

nybble41 6y ago

> The constitution doesn't outline what a search without a warrant should look like. Only because a search without a warrant is by definition not backed by any legal authority, and without legal authority the only way they get to do the search is with the owner's permission. A "search warrant" is nothing more or less than legal authorization to perform the search—whatever form that authorization might take. Any law authorizing a search would itself be a warrant (though perhaps an unconstitutional one), which implies that a law authorizing "warrantless searches" would be self-contradictory.

DubiousPusher 6y ago
> Only because a search without a warrant is by definition not backed by any legal authority Except this is exactly what Terry v. Ohio is about. It defines "stop and frisk" type searches under "reasonable suspicion" as constitutional despite the fact that the officer does not get a warrant.
- nybble41 6y ago
  That just means the court itself issued a warrant by granting permission to perform the search, whether they called it that or not. However, that warrant doesn't meet the constitutional requirements—it lacks probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and doesn't define the specific places to be searched or items to be seized—which means the court itself violated the Constitution in issuing it.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    Uh yeah, I agree that Terry is a bad decision. That's pretty much how I started this thread. I think it's pretty semantical though to debate whether the court made a bad decision because they were defining a warrantless search or because they were defining warranted searches that don't meet the requirements set by the constitution.