One does have to recall that one of the reasons the 4th was written was due to the use of improper warrants to begin with, and that searches and seizures conducted with such warrants were deemed unreasonable, not that ALL searches, particularly without warrant were unreasonable.b322da wrote:With my respect to the poster of the above, I must note that the first reference given here says at the beginning of the 4th paragraph: "In short, what [the 4th Amendment] means is that for a police officer to search your home or your belongings, he must present a warrant."
That statement is simply and clearly untrue. The 4th Amendment does not require the presentation of a warrant for a police officer to search your home or your belongings.
The 4th only protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." As one who has always thought the 4th Amendment is one of our most important, and one which today suffers from abuse and ignorance as much as any of our rights in the Bill of Rights do, and I include here the 2nd, I also firmly believe that if we go to the mat misquoting the Bill of Rights we not only do not help the cause of freedom, but we hurt it. That is, an untrue statement is easily rebutted, without getting into the merits of the particular case.
I must recognize, of course, that the author of that sentence goes on to weakly take some of the meat out of it, but the sentence stands alone as a statement of fact, and many, misled by such statements, wrongly believe them to be true. Unless there is some other requirement for a warrant under certain circumstances, either, for example, judge-made, legislature-made, or people-made, the follow-on in the 4th just describes what is required of the one seeking the warrant.
There have been judges and scholars who credibly argue that a search warrant, complying with the spirit and the words of the 4th before its issuance, makes the following search and/or seizure prima facie reasonable, although even the warrant may be later challenged. That is, it moves the burden of satisfying one's self in advance that a prospective search and/or seizure will be reasonable from the LEO or DA to a judge.
If we can succeed in protecting ourselves against unreasonable searches and seizures we will have won this battle without muddying the argument up unnecessarily.
Jim
Part of the problem is the subtle but not insignificant interpretation of the English language that has happened in the time since the Bill of Rights was written, which has of course led some to believe that the militia is the only "people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Unfortunately court cases since have allowed skewed interpretations to continue, encouraging those who do the misinterpreting to continue.