Friday
(0)This particular article on the oral argument before the US Supreme Court concerning search and siezure doctrine doesn't really have any looming significance for the future of planetary liberty. I mostly thought it was well-written and funny, and gives some insight into the "sausage factory" of the common law.
First, the set-up:
The Fourth Amendment bars the state from unreasonable searches and seizures. One of the things that makes a search constitutionally "reasonable" is the presence of a warrant. Another is an old common-law requirement: the so-called knock-and-announce rule. The rule is codified in 18 USC § 3109, which provides that in executing a search warrant, "an officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house … if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance." In cases of likely destruction of the evidence, or danger to life, the cops are free to bash first and knock later.
An insight into the fundamental problem with the appellate courts in the US:
Stevens is still hung up on the statute. The statute requires "refusal" to admit the cops. Silence is not refusal, he says. Salmons replies, "That is the way the statute is worded. But this court has never construed the statute to be read literally."Hold the phone.
This is a court that is rabid about construing statutes literally. This is a court that would read Dada poetry literally. They are strangely satisfied with this answer.
Actually, the Supreme Court, like almost any court, only reads statutes literally when that will get them where they want to go. When the words on the page of the governing authority, whether a statute or the Constitution, are inconvenient, well, then we get a lot of blather about "living documents" or "legislative intent" or whatever, until the courts feel we have been lulled into not noticing they are about to say that the governing authority says something which it clearly does not say.
Anyhow, read the article mostly for the wit and the bathroom humor. What's that, you say? Bathroom humor at the Supreme Court of the United States?
You bet. Read the whole thing, and find out.
It's the 9th Circuit. That's all you need to know. The 9th is the most overturned court system in US.
Posted by BigFire at October 17, 2003 08:58 PM
Thomas Jefferson was not too fond of the judiciary
for some reason comments will not accept target=
Posted by fnyser at October 17, 2003 11:42 PM
Anyhow, read the article mostly for the wit and the bathroom humor.
Hmm, I think I'll read Henry James instead. Thanks anyway.
Posted by George Peery at October 18, 2003 12:14 AM
The same court that decided "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance made the Pledge of Allegiance "un-Constitutional".
Posted by Matt from Vegas at October 19, 2003 01:03 AM
Well there, Matt from Vegas, I'm with them.
A nation "under God", sounds like religious establishment to me, even if rather a vague one compared with the 39 Articles of the Church of England.
I should have joined the Boy Scouts, but for an oath to serve God and the Queen. I'm a fan of the US in many respects, but I really don't think I could become a citizen by making such a pledge, believing it to be a lie.
Posted by Guy Herbert at October 19, 2003 09:27 AM
While the court must uphold every citizen's fourth ammendment right, that does not grant people the right to engage in illegal activities in their homes. Law enforcement has developed clever ways to gain access into homes, with or without a knock, but not without a significant risk of life and limb by undercover officers and/or CI's. These warrants are only gained by obtaining probable cause via personal observations of the illegal acts. The manner of entry as approved by the courts depends in large part upon the ease of disposal of contraband, and more importantly, the risk to the officers. These individuals often aim to injure, or kill them!
While the criminals are largely enabled in lawlessness by civil liberties, which I believe are absolutely essential, law enforcement officers are bound by them. We follow all the rules, and they break all of them. There is an unfair advantage, but it's not ours. Our rights were meant to protect law abiding citizens from government intrusion, but they are also protecting child pornograghers and cocaine dealers. Complain about an intrusion into a home where the occupants were not involved in these types of illegal activities. I'll give you my support. We are subject to lawsuits if mistakes are made, and we should be held accountable. Just try to understand that sometimes it is necessary to enter without knocking, otherwise common sense by the criminal would make law enforcement useless. If you think that selling cocaine should be legal, fight that fight outrightly. The day I violate someone's civil rights, is the day I leave the job.
Posted by wadrespect noyb at February 26, 2005 03:43 AM
Oh yea...and I don't think God has any place in school. It's just too exclusionary.
Posted by wadrespect noyb at February 26, 2005 03:52 AM
