nt

the intruders probably told him it was about the school loans when it was all happening but it was about something else. It is still no excuse for what they did. If the warrant does not say what it was all about, that may explain why the news station had to end up with a third version of events in lest than a day and a half.

The gent is consulting a lawyer now so he probably will be told to stay quite about it.

I talked to the lawyer for a little while last night. He has rightfully put a muzzle on his client. He told me he has argued 4th Amendment cases before the Supreme Court in the past. (At least one…)

After listening to what the lawyer had to say and thinking further on it later and if what he says is right, I’m not sure the 4th Amendment currently means a damn thing.

He suggested that he and I talk some more tonight.

He is going to be on our radio show tomorrow. Do you have any specific questions you want me to ask him?

Meanwhile, check what I just found:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-1414

Partial quote from that link:

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JEFFREY GRUBBS

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of
appeals for the ninth circuit

[March 21, 2006]

“Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court….”

“….Second, respondent argues that listing the triggering condition in the warrant is necessary to ” ‘assur[e] the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.’ ” Id., at 19 (quoting United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 9 (1977)). The Ninth Circuit went even further, asserting that if the property owner were not informed of the triggering condition, he “would ‘stand [no] real chance of policing the officers’ conduct.’ ” 377 F. 3d, at 1079 (quoting Ramirez v. Butte-Silver Bow County, 298 F. 3d 1022, 1027 (CA9 2002)). This argument assumes that the executing officer must present the property owner with a copy of the warrant before conducting his search. See 377 F. 3d, at 1079, n. 9. In fact, however, neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure imposes such a requirement. See Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 562, n. 5 (2004). “The absence of a constitutional requirement that the warrant be exhibited at the outset of the search, or indeed until the search has ended, is … evidence that the requirement of particular description does not protect an interest in monitoring searches.” United States v. Stefonek, 179 F. 3d 1030, 1034 (CA7 1999) (citations omitted). The Constitution protects property owners not by giving them license to engage the police in a debate over the basis for the warrant, but by interposing, ex ante, the “deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer . . . between the citizen and the police.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 481-482 (1963), and by providing, ex post, a right to suppress evidence improperly obtained and a cause of action for damages. …”

(I’m not a lawyer but) this lawyer is telling me SCOTUS says the law officers don’t actually have to serve a defined search warrant they have before executing it.

I would think this lawyer would know what he is talking about because he is the lawyer who argued it before SCOTUS back in 2006 and lost the decision.