Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (21278)	6/16/2006 7:21:30 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541912

In my mind, the fault of this decision is primarily in the mindset of the majority justices. It assumes that once a warrant is issued, the police will always find the evidence they want, that is, that a guilty person is inside the house. The Constitution OTOH, is written under the assumption that people are innocent, and the Forth Amendment is there to prevent hobnailed thugs from crashing into normal people's homes. Well put. If there is a genuine presumption of innocence before the law (maybe a suspicion of guilt, but nonetheless a presumption of innocence) then that is surely the Constitutional meaning. And the letter of the law should follow the spirit.