[linskyjack]

I havent made a decision on this guy yet---and I do understand that there is a shrill reaction on the left (kind of like the right with Miers). Lets watch the circus unfold and see what the man has to say.

[plschwartz]

Rog
This seems to me to be the heart of the majority decision:
The warrant provides the license to
search, not the affidavit. Cases such as
Bianco, Towne and Carlisle may allow us
to rescue an overbroad warrant if the
police forbear from exercising the full
measure of its excessive scope. It does not
follow that we can rescue an overbroad
search if the police exceed the full
measure of the warrant. Bluntly, it is one
thing if officers use less than the authority
erroneously granted by a judge. It is quite
another if officers go beyond the authority
granted by the judge. Were we to adopt
the officers’ approach to warrant
i n t e r p re t a t ion, and allow an
unincorporated affidavit to expand the
authorization of the warrant, we would
come dangerously close to displacing the
critical role of the independent magistrate.
This point was reemphasized
forcefully this term by the Supreme Court
in Groh v. Ramirez. In Groh, the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
completed an application and affidavit that
detailed with specificity that the agents
sought to search for and seize a cache of
firearms suspected to be located at the
home of Joseph Ramirez. Groh, 540 U.S.
at __, slip op. at 2. The warrant was less
specific. In the portion of the printed
warrant form “that called for a description
of the ‘person or property’ to be seized,”
the agents identified the location to be
searched, but neither listed the items to be
seized nor “incorporate[d] by reference the
itemized list contained in the application.”
Id. The warrant did refer to the affidavit
by reciting that the Magistrate was
satisfied that the affidavit established
narrowing a warrant. United States v.
Christine, 687 F.2d 749, 759-60 (3d Cir.
1982).
10
probable cause to believe that contraband
was concealed on the premises. Id. On
the authority of the warrant, the Bureau
searched Ramirez’s house. Id. at 3. The
Bureau did not seize anything, nor were
any charges filed against Ramirez.7 Id.
Ramirez sued Groh and the other officers
for a Fourth Amendment violation.
The facts in Groh were strikingly
similar to those in this case:
In Groh, as here, the agents
submitted an application and affidavit that
detailed what they wanted to search and to
seize. Id. at 2.
In Groh, as here, the affidavit
sought to supply probable cause to search
for, and seize, those listed items. Id.
In Groh, as here, the warrant form
was prepared by the officer who wrote the
affidavit, and who presumably intended
the warrant to authorize the search and
seizure of the items in the affidavit. Id. at
12.8
In Groh, as here, the warrant
expressly referred to the affidavit in
affirming the existence of probable cause,
but not in describing what was to be
searched and seized. Id. at 2-3.
In Groh, as here, the Magistrate
reviewed the warrant and affidavit, and did
not alter the warrant before signing it.
On these facts, the Supreme Court
held the search warrant invalid. Id. at 11.
The Court’s reasoning turned precisely on
the sharp distinction the law draws
between what is authorized in a warrant,
and what is merely an application by the
police. Id. at 5-6. The Court recognized
that the application and affidavit contained
an adequate description of the items to be
seized, but observed that because neither
was incorporated by reference into the
warrant description of “‘persons or
property’ to be seized,” their contents were
irrelevant. Id. at 2, 5-6. But the Court
explicitly rejected the argument that one
could infer that the Magistrate must have
intended the warrant to authorize the full
scope of what was sought in the affidavit:

[Rollin' Rog]

Well, I can't argue on whether the decision has technical merit from a standpoint of precedent. What I do say is it defies common sense. The affidavit is, as I understand it, the document reviewed by the judge who grants the authority for the Warrant. It would therefore seem logically consistent to conclude that the judge granted that warrant on the presumption that the terms and specifics of the affidavit had validity for the search.

This is the common sense that I think most police officers would assume in conducting the search. The majority ruling may have relied on what it saw as technical precedent -- but I see no extremism or ideology in the dissent. I agree with the dissent.

[Mulderator]

[quote=Rollin' Rog]Well, I can't argue on whether the decision has technical merit from a standpoint of precedent. What I do say is it defies common sense.

Of course it does and that was Alito's position, which is why I said only a Moore-On would see a problem with his dissent. And none of the Precedent the majority cites stands for what they claim it does. As I said, you see them hedging all through the opinion, "we recognize police can rely on blah, blah, but"; "we realize that warrants should be subject to hyper scrutiny on minor clerical errors, but", etc., etc. The friggin warrant cites to the affadavit in several other places--it clearly incorporates it. Its like claiming that "Exhibit A" to a contract isn't part of a contract unless the contract specifically says its part of it in a particular place in the contract--never mind that the contract refers to the Ehxibit in other places--IT MUST SAY IT IN A PARTICULAR PLACE! " The really absurd thing is they had the cops depositions and the cops said the only reason it wasn't written in the one place these Moore-Ons said it should be is because there wasn't enough room on the form. Are they suppposed to scribble in in pen, "Oh, and the attached affadavit is specifically incorporated into this warrant!"

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

The affidavit is, as I understand it, the document reviewed by the judge who grants the authority for the Warrant. It would therefore seem logically consistent to conclude that the judge granted that warrant on the presumption that the terms and specifics of the affidavit had validity for the search.

This is the common sense that I think most police officers would assume in conducting the search. The majority ruling may have relied on what it saw as technical precedent -- [b]but I see no extremism or ideology in the dissent. I agree with the dissent.

Precisely Rog. I also have no problem is these judges want to claim the search was invalid for 4th Amendment purposes on some picky little hypersenstive detail, but for Godsakes don't hold that the people searched have the right to sue the cops and put this case in the hands of 12 idiots where a good Plaintiff attorney can trick them as easily as the liberals are tricked by headline that Alito supports illegal strip searches. A judge with common sense is going to grant the officers immunity finding that while the search may be procedurally defective, reasonable officers were within their rights to assume the warrant allowed them to search the wife and kid. Remember, they can still violate the Constitution--in fact every immunity case does include an alleged violation of the Constitution--that's what the immunity is for. What you are trying to prevent here is a clear intrusion by law enforcement of civil rights. From a common sense standpoint, this case isn't anywhere close to that even assuming the warrant was defective.

As Alito points out, the majority relies heavily on a case (Groh) that doesn't even support their position. Groh states:

We do not say that the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrant from crossreferencing other documents. [b]Indeed, most Courts of Appeals have held that a court may construe a warrant with reference to a supporting application or affidavit if the warrant uses appropriate words of
incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant. . .

In this case, the affadavit was incorporated in at least two other places!!! These judges are trying to claim that because it wasn't incorporated specifically in one part of the warrant, then only the parts of the affadavit specifically incorporated can be incorporated, which is absurd--there is no common sense to that at all.

But again-I have no problem if you want to micro-inspect this warrant and dissallow evidence, but don't allow the people to sue the police officers for oding their job--its outrageous.

But this is the double edge sword for me--we get this ridiculous no common sense interpretations by liberals here in California continuously and it keeps lawyers plenty busy and making plenty of money. These judges allow people to sue governments here and they recover millions if they get the right downtown minority laden juries to take out their anger and frustration on the cops and we all suffer for it while a few Plaintiffs and their lawyers get rich! That's the only thing this decision accomplishes--it doesn't protect anyone's civil rights, it just gives lawyers and scum suckers another way to get rich--what the liberals love--re-distribution of the wealth to the trial lawyers!

Keep it coming liberals--your financing Mulder's retirement!

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Mulder

He was unanimously confirmed as a Judge to the Circuit Court by Democrats. They are going to have a lot of "splainin" to do now if they try to block him. Brilliant move by Bush. In retrospect, I think he probably planned it that way (or Rove did)--if Miers was received well, put her on, if not, she would resign. The liberals all criticized him for the Miers move, now he puts on a guy exactly what they said he should--a judge with many years on the bench and now they're going to try and block that. Moore-Ons--how many different ways can Bush beat them?

I beg to differ. Bush doesn't have a brilliant bone in his body!!! Or maybe he Knew Mier's was a great political move and she would be flushed out. Bush can't beat anything, he is completely transparent and utterly a moron. Worse!!!! He is Proud of it, it appears. He gets away with it. Night Mulder

[stormylin]

Common Sense!! What a novel idea!! Mulder you need to stop the plagerism of using that term. I suspect you have it, now prove it!!

K, this is Killing me, I'm outta here!! Mulder needs to get out of the closet!!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by stormylin

I beg to differ. Bush doesn't have a brilliant bone in his body!!! Or maybe he Knew Mier's was a great political move and she would be flushed out. Bush can't beat anything, he is completely transparent and utterly a moron. Worse!!!! He is Proud of it, it appears. He gets away with it. Night Mulder

This is pretty funny--the man has been elected to the Presidency--twice. He's going to get two of his Supreme Court justice (both conservatives) confirmed and sway the makeup of the court to the right for next 30 years. He got his tax cuts passed, he got his Iraq war. It seems he's got just about everything he asked for (except social security). You have to wonder about the person who's calling him a moron!

[stormylin]

[quote=Mulder]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Well, I can't argue on whether the decision has technical merit from a standpoint of precedent. What I do say is it defies common sense.

Of course it does and that was Alito's position, which is why I said only a Moore-On would see a problem with his dissent. And none of the Precedent the majority cites stands for what they claim it does. As I said, you see them hedging all through the opinion, "we recognize police can rely on blah, blah, but"; "we realize that warrants should be subject to hyper scrutiny on minor clerical errors, but", etc., etc. The friggin warrant cites to the affadavit in several other places--it clearly incorporates it. Its like claiming that "Exhibit A" to a contract isn't part of a contract unless the contract specifically says its part of it in a particular place in the contract--never mind that the contract refers to the Ehxibit in other places--IT MUST SAY IT IN A PARTICULAR PLACE! " The really absurd thing is they had the cops depositions and the cops said the only reason it wasn't written in the one place these Moore-Ons said it should be is because there wasn't enough room on the form. Are they suppposed to scribble in in pen, "Oh, and the attached affadavit is specifically incorporated into this warrant!"



Precisely Rog. I also have no problem is these judges want to claim the search was invalid for 4th Amendment purposes on some picky little hypersenstive detail, but for Godsakes don't hold that the people searched have the right to sue the cops and put this case in the hands of 12 idiots where a good Plaintiff attorney can trick them as easily as the liberals are tricked by headline that Alito supports illegal strip searches. A judge with common sense is going to grant the officers immunity finding that while the search may be procedurally defective, reasonable officers were within their rights to assume the warrant allowed them to search the wife and kid. Remember, they can still violate the Constitution--in fact every immunity case does include an alleged violation of the Constitution--that's what the immunity is for. What you are trying to prevent here is a clear intrusion by law enforcement of civil rights. From a common sense standpoint, this case isn't anywhere close to that even assuming the warrant was defective.

As Alito points out, the majority relies heavily on a case (Groh) that doesn't even support their position. Groh states:



In this case, the affadavit was incorporated in at least two other places!!! These judges are trying to claim that because it wasn't incorporated specifically in one part of the warrant, then only the parts of the affadavit specifically incorporated can be incorporated, which is absurd--there is no common sense to that at all.

But again-I have no problem if you want to micro-inspect this warrant and dissallow evidence, but don't allow the people to sue the police officers for oding their job--its outrageous.

But this is the double edge sword for me--we get this ridiculous no common sense interpretations by liberals here in California continuously and it keeps lawyers plenty busy and making plenty of money. These judges allow people to sue governments here and they recover millions if they get the right downtown minority laden juries to take out their anger and frustration on the cops and we all suffer for it while a few Plaintiffs and their lawyers get rich! That's the only thing this decision accomplishes--it doesn't protect anyone's civil rights, it just gives lawyers and scum suckers another way to get rich--what the liberals love--re-distribution of the wealth to the trial lawyers!

Keep it coming liberals--your financing Mulder's retirement!

Really, cops need a warrent? Liberals suck I am with Mulder here. Cept, this is a contradiction. You can't give up Constitutional rights and expect democracy. That doesn't work Mulder. Republicans that give up Civil Rights don't have any more Common Sense then Democrats do. Loose the Common Sense propaganda Please!!! The system of law aka attornies works great if eveyone gives up their Constitutional rights, aka Civil Rights is that right Mulder? O&O

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Now, frankly, my liberal credentials may be in jeopardy here, but this makes absolutely no sense, common or otherwise to me.

Nope--you're an intellecually honest liberal--they do exist!

[Mulderator]

[quote=stormylin]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Really, cops need a warrent? Liberals suck I am with Mulder here. Cept, this is a contradiction. You can't give up Constitutional rights and expect democracy. That doesn't work Mulder. Republicans that give up Civil Rights don't have any more Common Sense then Democrats do. Loose the Common Sense propaganda Please!!! The system of law aka attornies works great if eveyone gives up their Constitutional rights, aka Civil Rights is that right Mulder? O&O

This has nothing to do with this debate--you are rambling again. You need to actually understand what rights you have before you can intelligently discuss what ones you're giving up (or think you're giving up)!

Look stormy--just interact with Mulder as a blond TSG girl--you'll be much happier!

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Mulder

This is pretty funny--the man has been elected to the Presidency--twice. He's going to get two of his Supreme Court justice (both conservatives) confirmed and sway the makeup of the court to the right for next 30 years. He got his tax cuts passed, he got his Iraq war. It seems he's got just about everything he asked for (except social security). You have to wonder about the person who's calling him a moron!

You beg to differ? Was he Elected Mulder? He is our first Ever Supreme Court Justice nominated president. Please!!

Yea, read your facts!!!! And the way he got his Iraq war was by LYING, WMD's??? HA HA!!!! LOL!! Give me a break, we have more then they did, which was 0 and Russia has what over 12 thousand WMD's? There are about 12 countries minimally that have more WMD's then this guy that they planted in a hole did. I got the scoop btw, from a CBS journalist, yes, sorry to burst your bubble, Saddam WAS planted in that hole. This guy had the footage and the White House took it out!!

Mulder start reading and see who is the moron

[stormylin]

[quote=Mulder]

Originally Posted by stormylin

This has nothing to do with this debate--you are rambling again. You need to actually understand what rights you have before you can intelligently discuss what ones you're giving up (or think you're giving up)!

Look stormy--just interact with Mulder as a blond TSG girl--you'll be much happier!

Sorry Mulder, I am Always against the grain!! For the record, I am Always Happy!! And I will exclude my next comment from this list!! LOL!!

[stormylin]

Personally, I am in the high opinion that all this legal crap-------- 'scuse me pardon moi s'il te plais'-- debate----- is rambling!!!

[stormylin]

I thought so. No response. Cause you have no answer. Night Mulder!!

[stormylin]

K, Mulder answer me tomorrow, or never if you can't come up with one........... He He Mulder is speechless!!



Was GW Bush elected?!! I promise you he wasn't!! He is a Supreme Court nominee!!

And when he ran for office for a second term?----Incumbents are reelected --what 97% of the time? Give me a break!! A reelection is not a win. It is a no brainer. GW is our first non elected President ever in history!!!

Aca told me you are a Libertarian. I am Trying to be open minded!! I am positively sure you wish you were!!