Excellent presentation of the issues. I really liked how the moderator, Jeffrey Rosen, briefly summarized each speaker's point before he asked the other to respond to it.
"...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." This means you are NOT supposed to be issued warrants until you ALREADY HAVE reasons for your suspicions -- until you ALREADY KNOW where to search AND what evidence or person is located there. Furthermore, that warrant must be SPECIFIC about the place(s) AND the item(s) and/or people. Items not specified on the warrant SHOULD NOT be seized. You seem to have had some expectation that a photo or two might be useful, but you obviously had no REASON to know what specific evidence might be there. I wouldn't have signed a warrant that violated his rights!!! Why are violations of the supreme law in our land not prosecuted and punished as the crimes they are? If citizens are expected to know and to uphold their side of the constitutional contract, why are representatives of government and the law enforcement officers not required to know and to uphold THEIR side of the contract? If a citizen's "ignorance of the law is no excuse," why is a law enforcement officer's ignorance of the law so readily excused? Between a citizen and a LEO, which has more experience, more professional responsibility, and more training?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED..." is a REQUIREMENT not a "preference."
I say if the officer is willing to go to prison himself for a few years to perform an illegal search, then give him THAT choice. If the search results in a conviction for the suspect, then lock both up and call it a day.
"...everyone is interested in protecting privacy?" What fantasy world do pretend to live in? Everyone is interested in protecting HIS privacy, but VERY few want to protect anyone ELSE's privacy.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " So why wassn't he "allowed" to have firearms?
I want to point out a related Fifth Amendment issue: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ..." First, there is no prohibition of being ONCE put in jeopardy of life or limb -- so what is "limb?" Second, cutting off an arm or a leg is cruel and unusual punishment, so clearly "limb" cannot mean a digit or appendage. Third, would the word have been explicitly included if it were not necessary to the expression of the meaning? I believe "limb" means anything that might legally be removed from a person's life short of life itself. A person's life consists of far more than breaths and heartbeats. People associate with family, friends, and work peers, but obviously we cannot remove other people as punishment for my crimes; these limbs are not the jeopardy intended. People's lives also are attached to the assets they own, to the work they perform, to the community they enjoy and serve, to the knowledge they study and learn, to the proprietors they solicit, to the hobbies they pursue, etc. Any of these "limbs" (or others not enumerated) might ONCE be put in jeopardy as long as 1) no unalienable rights are violated, 2) the punishment is just, and 3) the punishment is not cruel or unusual.
If he and his smartphone were already in custody, where was the difficulty in obtaining a search warrant legally rather than usurping the court's authority?
Excellent presentation of the issues. I really liked how the moderator, Jeffrey Rosen, briefly summarized each speaker's point before he asked the other to respond to it.
"...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." This means you are NOT supposed to be issued warrants until you ALREADY HAVE reasons for your suspicions -- until you ALREADY KNOW where to search AND what evidence or person is located there. Furthermore, that warrant must be SPECIFIC about the place(s) AND the item(s) and/or people. Items not specified on the warrant SHOULD NOT be seized. You seem to have had some expectation that a photo or two might be useful, but you obviously had no REASON to know what specific evidence might be there. I wouldn't have signed a warrant that violated his rights!!!
Why are violations of the supreme law in our land not prosecuted and punished as the crimes they are? If citizens are expected to know and to uphold their side of the constitutional contract, why are representatives of government and the law enforcement officers not required to know and to uphold THEIR side of the contract? If a citizen's "ignorance of the law is no excuse," why is a law enforcement officer's ignorance of the law so readily excused? Between a citizen and a LEO, which has more experience, more professional responsibility, and more training?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED..." is a REQUIREMENT not a "preference."
I say if the officer is willing to go to prison himself for a few years to perform an illegal search, then give him THAT choice. If the search results in a conviction for the suspect, then lock both up and call it a day.
"...everyone is interested in protecting privacy?" What fantasy world do pretend to live in? Everyone is interested in protecting HIS privacy, but VERY few want to protect anyone ELSE's privacy.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " So why wassn't he "allowed" to have firearms?
I want to point out a related Fifth Amendment issue: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ..." First, there is no prohibition of being ONCE put in jeopardy of life or limb -- so what is "limb?" Second, cutting off an arm or a leg is cruel and unusual punishment, so clearly "limb" cannot mean a digit or appendage. Third, would the word have been explicitly included if it were not necessary to the expression of the meaning? I believe "limb" means anything that might legally be removed from a person's life short of life itself.
A person's life consists of far more than breaths and heartbeats. People associate with family, friends, and work peers, but obviously we cannot remove other people as punishment for my crimes; these limbs are not the jeopardy intended. People's lives also are attached to the assets they own, to the work they perform, to the community they enjoy and serve, to the knowledge they study and learn, to the proprietors they solicit, to the hobbies they pursue, etc. Any of these "limbs" (or others not enumerated) might ONCE be put in jeopardy as long as 1) no unalienable rights are violated, 2) the punishment is just, and 3) the punishment is not cruel or unusual.
If he and his smartphone were already in custody, where was the difficulty in obtaining a search warrant legally rather than usurping the court's authority?
Because the judge wouldn’t approve it