Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Obtaining a warrant without a sworn statement despite the
 Constitution
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:09:32 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <102sehb$2ihec$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102s6mm$2gk0g$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:09:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc27aaa7e23caa4f6730861d189a242f";
	logging-data="2704844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JcUHpUXohkbuG5HBzLZvRdhzf3wgw8hE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sj5TB1Tk8SDITd19mmriPwUp2+Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <102s6mm$2gk0g$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/17/2025 12:55 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Let's review the Constitution.
> 
> 	 Fourth Amendment
> 
> 	 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> 	 papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
> 	 seizures, shall not be violated, 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.
> 
> Do you see "supported by Oath or affirmation"? That's not ambiguous, but
> then, I'm not a judge. There is line of cases (that I admit I am
> unfamiliar with) introducing ambiguity. The cop applying for a warrant
> makes a sworn statement to the judge, but the warrant may be based on
> what a witness observed. The witness didn't make a sworn statement to
> the court, or even to the cop during interview.
> 
> This callous disregard in issuing warrants, in which the judge hasn't
> heard directly from the person with the information upon which the
> warrant is to be issued, leads to both unwitting errors and warrants
> issued upon deliberately false statements. Lack of a sworn statement
> means no consequences for the person who made the statement.
> 
> Raiding the wrong home can lead to the ultimate consequence: death.
> 
> Here's the Institute for Justice taking a case in which they would try
> to get judges to interpret this very important civil right using the
> Constitution's plain language.
> 
> ARRESTED for Asking Trespasser to Get off HIS Porch
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fye_JTGQ4y8

Without even nominal penalty for credulity, what else should we expect?