With the current US Court System, I expect this will be allowed if this raid ever gets to the Supreme Court.
With the current US Court System, I expect this will be allowed if this raid ever gets to the Supreme Court.
What do you mean?
In short they want to legislate from the bench.
How so?
> departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades
How so?
> they want to legislate from the bench
How so?
I passed 3 bar exams -- my default rule of thumb for the multiple-choice questions was that the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.
That's not accurate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-r...
* Lange v. California (police in hot pursuit of a suspect conduct warrantless entry) 9-0 in favor of the suspect
* United States v. Cooley 9-0 that tribal officers can stop non-natives on tribal land. Technically pro-police, but this really isn't so much a police issue as tribal sovereignty issue.
* Taylor v. Riojas 7-1 correctional officers did not in fact hold qualified immunity
In general, recent SCOTUS decisions have generally tended to land in favor of criminal defendants with regards to 4th Amendment violations. However, where SCOTUS has tended to land strongly against criminal defendants is in regards to post-conviction reconsideration, e.g. something like https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-....
Yes, but I've been following legal decisions since it was obvious there were severe issues with many local jurisdictions. The current SCOTUS seems to be pretty strong regarding rights lately, Roe being the exception.
>What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement?
I dunno, maybe point out some recent decisions you don't like, lets discuss them.
What do you mean?
> that will always side with the police
Both claims are false.
The federal government isn't exactly the best people to go at when it comes to the protection of journalists ans whistle blowers...