3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThat 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 agoUh 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.