I would have expected- naively, of course- that once it was pointed out that the judge was trespassing, didn't have a warrant, and wasn't allowed to do this, the cop would have stopped her.
"Please be advised that we conducted a diligent search based on the information you provided. However, no records were found in response to your request."
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in Illinois contempt has no upper limit. I assume you can give someone the death penalty for contempt. The sheriff in Illinois certainly has the ability to give the death penalty for any infraction inside a jail, even if it is as petty as littering.
I was in court once during the Jason Van Dyke trial and a guy laughed at a joke the judge made. The judge gave him 30 days jail for contempt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
> The sheriff in Illinois certainly has the ability to give the death penalty for any infraction inside a jail, even if it is as petty as littering.
Legally?
Thank you for the information.
This is also the way debt is criminalized.
The judge says you have to pay, you don't, contempt.
There was a guy imprisoned for over a decade because the judge believed he had money and was hiding it.
You can't go to jail in the USA for debts, but the judge can convert a debt into a contempt charge and then jail you on that.
You say people, but I'm going to bet they were all men.
Because judges can ruin cops lives too. There's virtually no oversight of judges. They granted themselves such secrecy that even if their disciplinary files have exculpatory evidence, you're not allowed to subpoena it. And the discipline is usually only related to egregious acts of misconduct. Stuff like incompetence or bending the rules or being inconsistent is basically ignored.
Plenty of videos online of judges being let out of reaffic stops and such while being assholes about it too.
Bailiffs' jobs are literally to provide immediate enforcement of the judges determinations of what is lawful. The normal expectation is that any legal arguments will be presented to and resolved (conclusively, for purposes of the bailiff, as any appeal will be after the execution of any orders) by the judge.
> Already I think bailiffs are normally mostly limited to courthouse?
Judges mostly work in the courthouse, but bailiffs aren't generally, that I know of, limited to it so much as that being normally where they are needed by virtue of where court work tends to happen.
All these people think hierarchy first, text second; if the judge is ordering it, that's sufficient for it to be legal. Especially in a small town.
To the police (and bailiffs, too, I would think), the judiciary is the source of all their powers.
De facto it's exactly like that.
I can understand a non-lawyer deferring to the lawyer (and judge) in their midst. If I were with my (non-judge) lawyer and they started doing something surprising, my first instinct wouldn't be to restrain them.
There is also a general principal that lawyers and judges should not turn themselves into witnesses. This judge just made herself a witness should any siezed material need be debated in court. Judges dont attend lineups or medical tests, nor should they attened searches.
But speaking just to the issue being asked here, why didn't anybody respond to a search being warrantless, the presence of the judge may have muddied that for the reason I suggested.
Everything else was fucked up, as you say.
My guess is the cop was simply ignorant of the law and more than happy to help the judge, ignorantly. But I'm curious if we was sanctioned or if ther was any consequence to him at all.