I'll answer questions! If the senate asks me about the Exclusionary Rule, for example, I'll answer as follows:
"The Exclusionary Rule is the court's doctrine of throwing out unconstitutional evidence, obtained through illegal searches.
The rule grows from James Madison’s own words, penned in the fourth amendment. Notice that Madison’s writing greatly resembles the modern bureaucratic form, and not some hillbilly patois, even though he wasn’t from the most cultured State in the Union.
The rule is important because it actually sets a penalty to police for conducting illegal searches, by tossing a crippling wrench in a government case.
Without the court ruling in favor of Weeks, the Exclusionary Rule may not even exist. But Weeks was just a federal case; the rule didn’t apply against the State until Mapp.
I didn’t use the word “against” by mistake. The ruling really did handicap law enforcement to an extent from that point on.
The framers of the constitution were in a pickle in 1789. Influential men, most notably, Patrick Henry, refused to sign the document, without guarantees to protect citizens from a central government.
So, based on a promise to do so, a young man from Virginia wrote out the Bill of Rights.
Besides giving States the right to build their own militias, Madison limited the powers of the State, so the authorities would never grow into a tyranny.
Tyrannies run over people on a whim, so Madison tied police powers to the court. He very carefully wrote out his checks and balances, so the police weren’t autonomous enough to become some demagogue’s enforcers.
He wasn’t careful enough, obviously, because the Supreme Court had to “interpret” a penalty for an offense.
Probable cause is a term that means the police and the courts must have a fully legitimate reason for harassing someone with intrusive searches.
That’s my take on it, because a provision exists for reasonable searches and seizures.
The provision for labeling the objective of the search exists, because, otherwise, the police could possibly “fish” a public enemies home, as a form of harassment.
Exemptions exist, for the most part, to protect officers and the public from a “clear and present danger” from concealed weapons.
Officers have the right to frisk an individual for a lethal weapon, or sweep the surrounding vicinity.
Other exemptions exist for suspicious vehicles and volunteers for searches.
Today, luggage searches and electronic “frisks” are allowed at public transportation sites, because these places are public domain."
Nominate me next!
My complete profile page
Blogroll of Truth