Quoting Article: "In a law review article later that year, Mr. Moran went even further. “My 5-4 loss in Hudson v. Michigan,” he wrote, “signals the end of the Fourth Amendment as we know it.”
Isn't it rather odd how events in time change the values or rules set before our institutions? Here, we have an example that seems to follow that path, one having much danger in store for the general population. That danger finds itself off center in this case, and in my mind, from the place where definitions and meanings actually receive their interpretation.
The question here struggles over the 'rule of exclusion' and how it applies when police make a mistake. As typical, much is taken from case history, court opinion, or even law review opinion. And we are taken with the rather new idea that the Constitution can change, or be eroded by these sources. Why is that so when, after much debate and research rules of operation surface that allow intrusion upon our Rights never surrendered to government.
Consider the source, I believe, where these matters come to the court rooms, or even before in the field of operations. That source is the Fourth Amendment and how it reads. First, it declares that the Rights mentioned "...shall not be violated." Secondly, it declares what is necessary for the operation to be proper. To raid a home, the police need a warrant issued on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and a declaration of place to be searched, persons or things to be seized.
If the police can not abide by these requirements, how can one say that the operation is even legal? Well, there is that little phrase found in those words "shall not be violated" and they apply to the police. If it's not legal, then it is illegal. If illegal, how can the fruits of one illegal act stand in court before another illegal act? That was just one of the tricks Governor/General Gage used in the British American Colonies before we went to war for Liberty and independence.
Never forget the purpose of the Bill of Rights -- "...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." How does the Fourth Amendment do that? It does it with the words, "shall not be violated."
Our police are good enough to do the job without violating the rules. Our judicial system is supposed to be good enough to be confident of the fundamental rules. When neither rely upon that confidence, we have despotism.
Dave
