|
There's lots of stuff protected by the Fourth, but it's not overt. The police can't just show up at my house for no reason and go through my stuff without a warrant. The government can't listen to my phone calls as a matter of course without a warrant. They can't arrest me because I look "funny". These are all lack of actions, which is hard to prove. The important thing is that government action against me requires a warrant. If they want to arrest me, search my home or take my stuff, they have to have to present probable cause and swear to it in front of a judge who may or may not choose to believe them or agree that there is enough probable cause to issue the warrant.
Both of the cases that we've discussed have involved warrants that may or may not have been issued incorrectly. There haven't been any warrantless searches or seizures. That was my entire point about splitting hairs - we're talking about typos or multiple entries to accomplish one specific task. If the police raided Mr. Mayes' home without a warrant or entered Mr. Scarfo's office a second time but without a warrant, then I would wholeheartedly agree, but I don't really see how the 4th Amendment is really being violated in either case. The 4th specfically requires arrest and search warrants and since they are being issued and served, I don't see where we've been discussing much more than the very edge of the 4th Amendment.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|