tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post6740499091821331246..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Drug task force case at SCOTUS would deputize informants to override Fourth Amendment warrant requirementGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-43477794524756552492008-03-26T07:07:00.000-05:002008-03-26T07:07:00.000-05:00Okaaaaaay...so, we're supposed to trust the statis...Ok<I>aaaaaay</I>...so, we're supposed to trust the statist-inclined Supreme Court, that generally rules against individual rights in favor of The State and its' friends, the corporations that service it so incestuously...to <I>protect</I> rights that hamper that State from further incursions into eroding individual rights and liberties? <BR/><BR/>Yeah, right...(scanning the skies for winged swine performing aerobatics)<BR/><BR/>See <I>Raich</I> for a perfect example of how putative 'conservatives', who <I>should</I> have been slavering at the bit to cut down the Fed bureaucracy by judicial <I>fiat</I>, instead ran and hid behind the robes belonging to, <I>of all things</I>, the much-hated-by-conservatives, FDR-sired New Deal <I>Wickard</I> case. <BR/><BR/>They had the chance to put their money where their mouth was, and wouldn't. Some 'conservatives', huh?<BR/><BR/>A brighter person than I am stated it very simply once: all the work in the world will not turn a lump of mud into an apple pie. The DrugWar is one such lump of mud, and no amount of trying to fine tune it will ever remove the fact it is a task impossible to complete. And no amount of trying to legitimize that 'fine tuning' with laws that are ever more corrosive of individual rights and liberties will ever succeed at anything, save make the situation worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-81909727930575132142008-03-26T05:42:00.000-05:002008-03-26T05:42:00.000-05:00to 09:51...WTF?to 09:51...WTF?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-13272564000700262862008-03-25T21:32:00.000-05:002008-03-25T21:32:00.000-05:00I suspect HPD's narcotics teams are doing this. Je...I suspect HPD's narcotics teams are doing this. Jeez. What's next?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-86113713671812813182008-03-25T14:33:00.000-05:002008-03-25T14:33:00.000-05:00Ah, I see what you're reacting to; your second com...Ah, I see what you're reacting to; your second comment came in while I was writing. Saying they had the "no warrants" part down in the last line was a tongue in cheek joke, intended as gentle ribbing for the opposition, not as constitutional interpretation. best,Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-44022102468088644572008-03-25T14:28:00.000-05:002008-03-25T14:28:00.000-05:00So YOU don't think it's reasonable, but my failure...So YOU don't think it's reasonable, but my failure to acknowledge that it could be, but isn't reasonable, is a distortion? Huh? Okay.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33350561471942629522008-03-25T14:25:00.000-05:002008-03-25T14:25:00.000-05:00That is, you only quoted this part of the Amendmen...That is, you only quoted this part of the Amendment: "The Fourth Amendment, as a reminder, declares that "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." At least the drug task force guys have the "no warrants shall issue" part down!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-52604727318733422442008-03-25T14:14:00.000-05:002008-03-25T14:14:00.000-05:00Really? No. I simply think that you are playing ...Really? No. I simply think that you are playing fast & loose with your reference to the "plain language" of the 4th Amendment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-29292000411692339542008-03-25T14:05:00.000-05:002008-03-25T14:05:00.000-05:00So, 1:41, some criminal comes into your residence ...So, 1:41, some criminal comes into your residence under false pretenses as an agent of the police, and you think that's evidence of "reasonableness"? Really?<BR/><BR/>There's a great deal of reason to think informants are unreliable. In fact, their false testimony ranks among the top causes of wrongful convictions. What precisely is so reasonable about lowering the bar for <I>warrantless</I> searches from accepting a police officer's word to accepting some crook's who's working to get out from under his own case?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-88267979363804243172008-03-25T13:41:00.000-05:002008-03-25T13:41:00.000-05:00So you mean the PLAIN language that says: "The ri...So you mean the PLAIN language that says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..." That is, the plain language that requires REASONABLENESS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-14698262612162597132008-03-25T11:31:00.000-05:002008-03-25T11:31:00.000-05:00I'd like to see the Supreme Court rule that in fac...I'd like to see the Supreme Court rule that in fact, government agents need a warrant to put a CI in someone's home at all. That's the way it should be.<BR/><BR/>It's wrong that the government of a free country puts spies in people's home to see what they are consuming. <BR/><BR/>I don't like the idea of undercover at all except for investigating murder and kidnapping.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58684837404203030482008-03-25T10:39:00.000-05:002008-03-25T10:39:00.000-05:00By mid-century, rage, at this rate, the 4th will b...By mid-century, rage, at this rate, the 4th will be as moot as the 9th. (You can always hang your hat on the 3rd, though!)<BR/><BR/>I hope you're right and they "draw the bright line," but in recent years the line seems to curve around whatever new search authority police are looking for, particularly in drug war cases. I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if the Roberts court fails to approve "consent once removed." The only thing that makes me hopeful they won't is that they might decide immunity should be considered first.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54955491398995156772008-03-25T10:18:00.000-05:002008-03-25T10:18:00.000-05:00This is odd, because in the past the police have b...This is odd, because in the past the police have been specifically prevented from having an agent do their dirty work for them. It was OK if the person did it on their own and reported it to the police, but not as a state actor. I guess they're trying to draw the bright line on this one. In this case, it's more of a strikeout of the 4th.<BR/><BR/>I didn't think the 4th could get any weaker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com