Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

  1. #11
    Educator Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    “We do not condone this illegal behavior by law enforcement; the better practice is to obtain a warrant before entering a home,”

    The "better" practice? How about the "legal" practice?

    This is a bad decision by that court.
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The fourth amendment is clear. You need a warrant. The fact they might get a warrant later is irrelevant. Because if that worked then cops can just search anyone's property willy nilly and say they would have gotten a warrant anyways.
    This was actually a very good decision, and consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988).

  2. #12
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 PM
    Slightly Liberal

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Hats off to Mycroft and Jamesrage.... I agree with your posts, and what I'm going to say now doesn't apply to either of you.

    But this decision is typical of the kind of conservative activism - especially in criminal law - that has become typical within the courts since the 1980's. The Fourth Amendment is clear on this matter... I don't know how anyone who considers themselves to be a strict constructionist or adhere to original intent (or whatever other label conservatives put on themselves when they want to look down on liberal activists) could dispute it:

    Amendment 4
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.
    Seems pretty clear to me. This is part of a trend - I've been having this debate in another thread on use of the Steele Dossier in FISA Warrant applications - going back to at least Justice Rehnquist's opinion in the 1983 Illinois v. Gates case. Seems to me that there are an awful lot of conservative judges who are all too willing to look past the wording of Constitution if it helps their "law and order" agenda.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts