|
|
| Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! (521732) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 12:10:49 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 11:53:27 2007. A search does not need to have a warrant to be legal.Indeed. Correctly stated. There are clearly defined situations where a warrant is not necessary. Well, unfortunately, not always clear, although sometimes clear. More often in the hard cases, it's downright fuzzy. Search and seizure law as a whole is really quite fuzzy apart from a few clear markers. That is why, for example, the bag search on the subway is legal even though the NYPD does not have a warrant Right, that was a "suspicionless" search, since having "reasonable suspicion" of wrongdoing can be enough to stop and frisk a suspect. Suspicionless searches are performed pursuant to a jurisprudence called "special needs searches". In the NYCT searches appeal, I thought that judges kinda bent over, to use the colloquial term, given the context. The evidence put up by the government that the search program is effective against terrorist attacks was just plain illogical, and I doubt the judges themselves actually believed it. There's no way that the City showed it was nearly as effective at deterring terrorist attacks via its program as, say, to rattle off some of the other special needs examples, border searches turn up illegal immigrants and contraband, or airport searches prevent (when properly conducted) importation of especially dangerous weapons on to aircraft. It's one thing to uphold a program that's doing its job, it's another thing to uphold a program that's basically conceded woefully inadequate in doing the job it's supposed to do. But the panel in that case - all three Democrats, as I recall - wasn't about to call the City's bluff. I think that's too bad, really, because courts really should not uphold ineffectual search regimes. Anyway, I thought the trial didn't focus enough on the empirical aspects of the case and on the question of whether the search program was more good PR than good policework. |
|
|
|