It's the stuff of movies and tv legal dramas. But it's based on reality. Just check out the case of federal judge Harold Baer, who tossed out 80 pounds of cocaine and heroine found on drug traffickers when he ruled a police search illegal.
Often Americans gripe about criminals getting off on such "technicalities."
But are they mere technicalities?
Catch criminals or protect privacy?
The Fourth Amendment seeks to balance the powers of government with individual rights, particularly privacy rights. But, like the Second Amendment, it's another constitutional Rorschach test where changing times and technologies make decisions a moving target.
Is it in America's best interests to keep the Fourth Amendment?
How can America win the war against drugs or defeat radical Islamic terrorism when the system puts the rights of criminals ahead of security?
The case Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 established the "exclusionary rule," whereby evidence found illegally is excluded from court. Chief Justice John Roberts would like the Mapp ruling overturned.
Where did this all start?
If this helped you understand American history any better, won't you please share with others?