He’s correct that the constitutional standard is “unreasonable search and seizure,” and that “probable cause” is only the standard in cases in which the government seeks a warrant. The Framers thought that warrants—used and abused by the British to search people’s homes without facing civil liability (the warrant would give immunity to the officer doing the seach)—were a bad thing that needed to be preconditioned on a high standard (thus “probable cause”) and required a certain level of specificity (the “general warrants” used by the British would not be allowed). But the Fourth Amendment, properly understood, does not require that all searches be preceded by a warrant, or even that there be probable cause before a search. It was liberal judges who conflated the unreasonable search prohibition with the probable cause requirement for warrants—liberal judges also confused the Fourth Amendment with the Fifth Amendment’s autoincrimination protection and created the ridiculous “Exclusionary Rule” from whole cloth.
I’m not saying that the guy is correct that the government’s phone-call-surveilance program meets the “reasonable search” requirement, but he is correct that the Constitution does not require that the government get a warrant first.
He’s already been condemned as one of the most stupid people on earth. And here you come along and say he made a valid point.
The words probable cause are in the 4th amendment, and his statement implies the actual words are not even in there.
So that must be why he’s considered to be so stupid.
Your point seems to be, how is the 4th amendment applied to situations? And on that, you are saying he made a valid point.
Do I have that right?
Gotta admit, on the point of whether the words probable cause are in there, he did sound stupid.
Just for the record, I don’t think Michael Hayden is stupid. Doesn’t mean I’m on board with everything he says.
VP Cheney isn’t stupid, either. Doesn’t mean I agree with his recent pronouncements on this subject.
One thing I note with amusement. Hayden left himself and “out”, of sorts, I think.
He said, “I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to be one”.
LOL
I am glad that I have minds like Mark Levin to get my legal explanations from and not you.
LLS
, but he is correct that the Constitution does not require that the government get a warrant first.
The fourth Amendment quoted above clearly states that probable cause is required for a warrant to be issued. There is nothing in the amendment that indicates that there is ever a situation that allows a search or seizure without a warrant.
He’s wrong, period. Just because he thinks it’s a good idea, does not make it legal.
A requirement that agents of government be bound by oath to the Constitution implies that those who act contrary to the Constitution do not do so as legitimate agents of the government. As such, it is right and proper that evidence they gather in such fashion be regarded as illegitimate, and not be usable against the interests of anyone whose rights were violated in its acquisition.
My objection to the exclusionary rule is the implication that any evidence which judges don't exclude must be considered legitimate. Judges generally only exclude evidence in cases where they find that they cannot justify as legitimate the methods used to collect it, even taking those who collected it at their word. I would posit that defendants have the right (alas not properly acknowledged) to challenge the legitimacy of presented evidence on the basis that people involved in its collection may not have been acting in good faith. Such matters are matters of fact that hinge on witness credibility; as such, the defendant should be allowed to have the jury consider them [disregarding any evidence they find to have been gathered in illegitimate fashion].