I agree with Miss Gamble. There is nothing in the language of the fourth amendment that requires warrants. Nor is there anything that says illegally obtained evidence should be excluded. These rulings have been carved out by the courts in response to our distrust of the police.
I also realise that the courts are more willing to adjust their thinking for the needs of the day. We search bags at airports now without warrants. Make people go through metal detectors. California requires finger prints just to get a drivers licence. The Department of Transportation has mandatory drug testing. We have all these invasive things we do to people, absent not only warrants, but absent any suspicions of wrongdoing! So, why can’t a police officer who’s been told there are weapons in the closet of a convicted felon, a man suspected of kidnapping, why can’t he open the closet?
I agree with the district attorney, the fourth amendment has been interpreted and expanded by the courts to the point where it belies both the language and the intent of the amendment. Which is reasonable?
But, I also know the Supreme Court rulings on search and seizure have set clear rules. And as much as I would love to be a renegade, our criminal justice system has no chance whatsoever once the judges themselves begin embracing judicial anarchy.
The search of the closet was illegal. The contents are inadmissible. With the contents suppressed, I find no probable cause to hold the defendant. He is free to go.
-- Linda Hunt as Judge Zoe Hiller on The Practice in the classic nun killer episode.
No comments:
Post a Comment