LOL!
I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's the rule of law. A cop who breaks into a drug dealer's house without a warrant may find drugs, but he may not use those drugs against the drug dealer, unless the cop finds a sympathetic judge.
A cop who breaks into a drug dealer's house without a warrant may find drugs, but he may not use those drugs against the drug dealer, unless the cop finds a sympathetic judge.
That's because the 4th amendment is very specific. Re-read the language, it's a fascinatingly well worded amendment. (Our founding fathers really were geniuses.):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This expectation of privacy in your home, possessions, papers and effects was inalienable. A warrant could not be issued except upon the oath or affirmation of a police officer (who is then bound by the laws of perjury) and that warrant has got to be specific.
I don't think this case has anything to do with the 4th amendment. It sounds like the police had probable cause to search this guy and his butt but the added invasion of this camera crew was just absurd. It shocks the conscience. (Sorry, I hate this test, it's an emotional liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg test and its extra-constitutional.)
I don't get the judges decision and many good Freeper made excellent comments on this case, I'm glad the judge threw it out, but like everyone else no one really understands the constitutional underpinnings because there really aren't any. The search itself was legal.
I just think we all agree, one crack dealer going free is a price we are willing to pay to not have camera crews filming strip searches and further nauseating our sensibilities. He'll get caught again. Not to worry. They always do.