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.
My experience of almost two decades disagrees with your premise. The courts require more probable cause today than they did when I started for obtaining warrants. They require more warrants today to search a person, place, or recover data than they used to. I routinely write warrants today that I did not have to write 10-20 years ago.
I would urge you to remember that almost all law enforcement is state and local. They answer to local politicians who have to run for election. We also have a great system in place where Sheriff’s run for election as independent agents of government. Woe to any Sheriff who runs a department with a reputation for violating peoples civil rights. He won’t be in office long. Local Judges run for election as well so they are usually cognizant of their duty to be fair and impartial and they are constantly worried about a higher court overturning their decision. It’s a great system if you love freedom.
The areas with the biggest problems in law enforcement often have two things in common. They are union agencies in democratic strongholds. In the South, we did not make the big wages they do in union states. Consequently, we knew that we worked for the taxpayers and any raise for officers would usually be by popular vote. That was pretty effective. The Chief was appointed by the Mayor and there are few things that will get an elected Mayor in hot water faster than a rogue department. That has been my experience for whatever it’s worth.
Technology will change continually and the courts will prudently weigh the new technologies against the constitution. They are doing that now and the most common answer is to get a search warrant as I said before. The police are not nearly as powerful as you seem to think and there are checks and balances throughout the system including the feds who investigate the police when civil rights violations are alleged.
The technology for big brother is definitely there, but so far the courts and the system seem to err on the side of civil rights and the checks and balances are working as intended. It’s not perfect and new issues will arise from time to time, but they will work through it like they always have and new case law will be born that will keep law enforcement on a very short leash.
The real danger we face is SCOTUS moving any further away from the constitution. It is sad to say that many of the important votes come down to one vote. I am hoping Obama can’t load the court with a second term because we can’t afford 1-3 more Justices like the two he gave us.
Magistrates are captive to higher Judges and the appellate courts. This (along with election for many) is the checks and balances you allege don’t exist. They don’t owe the police anything and they are not part of a police agency. They are Judges.
I believe the special courts you reference at the federal level consist of a single panel created under the Bush administration specifically for the war on terrorism. That is the only one that I am aware of and it’s a panel of very senior Judges that were created for that specific purpose. This kept their decisions and rulings out of the NY Slimes newspaper for our enemies to read. I think they also report to one of the congressional intelligence committees. I don’t know that much about it other than anything that keeps sensitive investigations from being compromised by the NY Slimes is a good thing in my book. I am doubtful that they are used against U.S. citizens that don’t have a foreign terror nexus, but I don’t have firsthand knowledge.
What tactical doctrines are you saying the framers would not approve of? I did’nt understand that.