Re:Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed fo...
by tdfx on Monday January 23, 2012 @11:19AM
(#3500858)
Most people would be appalled if they saw what the police get away with when they ask for search warrants. In the two areas I have personal experience with, the process of getting a warrant is an administrative inconvenience to the police, not the fair review that it's supposed to be. It's also important to keep in mind that it's similar to a prosecutor getting an indictment -- it's the law enforcement side telling only their side of the story, twisting facts however they please with no rebuttal, being told to a judge that maintains regular working relationships with these people and whose main concern is making sure the affidavit covers their ass enough not to get overturned on an appeal.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed fo...
by bambax on Monday January 23, 2012 @12:14PM
(#3501143)
In France in the 60s the police used to have fill-in-the-blanks search warrants: pre-signed and pre-approved, with the name of the searchee conveniently left blank, so officers could type in whatever they wanted whenever they needed.
I say "in France" and "in the 60s" because it's been proven to happen there and then, but it's probably still common in many parts of the world...
Re:Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed fo...
by driverdan on Monday January 23, 2012 @12:21PM
(#3501177)
My personal experience reflects this as well. Secret service obtained a search warrant looking for evidence of credit card fraud for my apartment based on some old consumer electronics packaging in our trash and recycling bins, bins shared with 2 other apartments nonetheless.