Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
It's been awhile since I've done any real Fourth Amendment research, but I know that there a couple of exceptions called "exigent circumstances" and "hot pursuit" which dispense with the warrant requirement for entry into a building or residence on the basis of a need to act quickly to prevent imminent harm. The most common enforcement mechanism for Fourth Amendment violations is the exclusionary rule, which renders evidence obtained during an illegal search inadmissible. In this instance, the search isn't for evidence but for a fugitive, so the exclusionary rule is not much of deterrent. While there can be civil liability for a Fourth Amendment violation, in the absence of some extraordinary police misconduct in the context of the search for the bomber, I don't see that happening either.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Re-read 164 and reposted it here; http://www.politicalchat.org/showpos...&postcount=164 ...in case anyone else wishes to take a gander at it.
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
04-22-2013, 05:02 PM
Threaded Mode