The point is that warrantless searches and no-knock dynamic entries are gradually becoming the norm.
That was not your point and I answered everyone of the things you alleged to support your suggestion that law enforcement is out to violate your rights. Each one of those needed a search warrant.
I probably agree with many of your concerns about SWAT and militarization of the police. I have said for years that SWAT is used far too often when other less militaristic tactics would suffice. The police are not the military and I have been in both.
You are wrong about warrantless searches. That can be a career ending event for a cop because it is a violation of a persons civil rights. Do you sincerely think a court and prosecutor are going to prosecute somebody on the basis of evidence that is illegally seized? That is not true. Even if the prosecutor, cop, and first Judge get it wrong it is highly unlikely the appeals court will. A defense attorney will usually have the case thrown out on the first hearing for an illegal search and in many cases the Judge will even admonish or crucify the officer. That is the reality of our court system where they take search and seizure very seriously.
“No knock” warrants require the permission of the Judge when applying for a warrant and the officers are required to articulate justifiable reasons for doing so prior to the court granting permission.
Again, everything you have alleged that law enforcement does in this thread to “routinely violate peoples rights” has required a search warrant or permission of the court. If you don’t like the police that is fine. Lord knows, I read stuff everyday and shake my head at the stupidity of some in my profession. I share your general concern for our freedom and know that most of my co-workers feel the same way. We are not your enemy and I have met very few people with badges over many years that I could ever see supporting a totalitarian state. Frankly, I did not hold a high opinion of those folks to begin with. Every profession has a few, right?
There are many things to be concerned about in our nation and SCOTUS is definitely one of them, because as I have stated many times on this forum, SCOTUS is the absolute authority on our constitutional rights. Given 1-3 more appointments by this administration we will likely lose the best restraint we currently have on the power of government.
I don’t mind having reasonable discussions about this stuff, but it must start out with the truth and not innuendo and half-truths that usually have little basis in reality. Cops make mistakes and so do courts. That is why there are appeals courts. In fact, there are few activities of government that are more scrutinized than law enforcement. Furthermore, your examples are not common in my experience and they need search warrants or articulated reasons to the satisfaction of a court.
Moving forward in our nation we will have to address technological changes vs civil rights. I believe in civil rights and therefore have no problem with the requirement to obtain search warrants when necessary to investigate crime. You seem to believe that rights are eroding in our country and that is not my experience. I would argue that searches have become far more restrictive over the last few decades. The trend in law enforcement has been to require search warrants and expand an individuals rights to privacy. I agree with the courts even though it sometimes makes work a little less convenient. Freedom is not about convenience for me when it involves your rights.
Another example of this was that officers used to be able to search vehicles under state law if they arrested the driver or passenger. Many states now require a search warrant to look in the car. That seems to be opposite of what you suggest and believe. This is something that probably happens thousands of times for each example you gave above. The same is true for searching computers, cellphones, digital cameras, etc etc. Those items often require a seperate search warrant with articulated facts to support the issuance when we used to be able to search under one blanket warrant.
Again, I will be glad to discuss this with you. I think “domestic shock and awe” is a little bit over the top and is not reflective of 99.9% of law enforcement in my experience. Too many people take one isolated incident and make sweeping generalizations about it on this forum and others. It’s not nearly as bad as you think. If you are open minded feel free to research my answers yourself. I am not your enemy anymore than I would be the enemy of my neighbors, friends, or family.
I pinged neverdem because the same offer applies....
FRegards.
My point, to redirect, was that improving technologies provide an ever-expanding menu of options to L.E. for finding ways around a subject's rights, and that the drift in the last 20 years or so has been toward greater ease in obtaining warrants, the creation of special courts with sealed proceedings and -- I would add -- captive magistrates who will almost-never restrain the police of the future in taking a surveillance action, and the acceptance in court of tactical doctrines that would never have met the approval of the Framers.
That's my point. My appeal to the dystopian model is still good. That's what we're looking at down the road.