Lame excuse. Corroboration is expected.
Because the warrant is the authorization to actually perform a search, obviously.
What exactly was being searched? Does an LEO have to get a search warrant to enter, search or cross private property in pursuit of a fleeing suspect/fugitive?
>> Because the warrant is the authorization to actually perform a search, obviously.
>
> What exactly was being searched? Does an LEO have to get a search warrant to enter, search or cross private property in pursuit of a fleeing suspect/fugitive?
Not applicable in the scenario given, even if such was the case. Besides which the officer didn’t even say that he was in pursuit.
>> I’m feeling lazy and don’t want to look up
>
> Lame excuse.
It’s the truth.
> Corroboration is expected.
Ok, here, read the constitution for yourself:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Fnl-SqDl-QAJ:sos.state.nm.us/pdf/2007nmconst.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgdGEgykJ-5XTBWpWG_h8XmNdIH7KByGwifLObXafp0OUWf2NKsNRrrR8ZQ1Ey9wFQPLpcnpivzqEXX4M-LqBxf8koQYl9Nxp-TdjtRcTGeMF3wVUI7ri61FTRg3fLsQeAfTsn3&sig=AHIEtbT_TVrD7d6kmgTUJ76y0o1bhqIWKw
Again, I do not ascribe to the theory that case law is needed to tell one what the Constitution means. Such a theory is repugnant to the Constitution itself, which says:
Art II, Sec. 2. [Popular sovereignty.]
All political power is vested in and de-
rived from the people: all government of
right originates with the people, is founded
upon their will and is instituted solely for
their good.
If it were the case that the case-law determined what the constitution meant then the actual people enacting the Constitution are not vesting power to the courts through the Constitution, but instead the Constitution through the courts. (This is a basic principle of authority.)