On June 5th, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision regarding US v. Huskisson, weakening the Fourth Amendment and due process. The original case seems relatively cut and dry with regards to Huskisson’s guilt; he agreed to sell methamphetamine to a confidential informant while DEA agents recorded the call. Huskisson arrived at his home the next day with the informant, carrying a cooler. The informant then gave a signal and multiple DEA agents entered the house, arresting Huskisson, who did not consent to a search of his property.
The underlying issue, and the matter at heart for the appeal, was that the DEA agents, after obtaining probable cause, did not wait for a search warrant before entering the house, making it an illegal search. Huskisson’s attorneys were seeking that his original conviction be overturned as the evidence obtained in the search, having been illegal, should not have been admissible. The 7th Circuit disagreed.
Good Intentions Trump Law
The decision of the Court was that, while the search was indeed illegal and the evidence would normally be inadmissible in the trial, the DEA agents were planning on applying for a warrant and one was issued four hours after the raid, thus justifying their actions.
This justification was predicated on the idea that the agents already had enough evidence and that the warrant would have been issued, had they waited. Therefore, the warrant was ultimately not necessary, merely the preferred procedure.
The Court did reiterate that the search was illegal, but the decision was to allow the evidence, and thus the conviction, to stand:
“We do not condone this illegal behavior by law enforcement; the better practice is to obtain a warrant before entering a home,” the panel continued. “Ordinarily, the evidence found here would be excluded. But because the government had so much other evidence of probable cause, and had already planned to apply for a warrant before the illegal entry, the evidence is admissible.
“Though the government should not profit from its bad behavior, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied,” the panel concluded.
Fourth Amendment Implications
This decision, while seemingly an isolated incident, ultimately weakens the integrity of the Fourth Amendment, which requires government agents to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search or arrest:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Over time, the Fourth Amendment has been weakened, from the stretching of probable cause to New York’s Stop and Frisk law, to the TSA’s apparent immunity to the legal requirements of due process. The 7th Circuit has now taken a further bite out of the necessary procedures designed to protect civilians from government overreach.
Due Process Second
It’s very probable that this case will continue to ascend the judiciary and could very well be overturned. Without a reversal, however, the precedent could continue to be stretched, requiring less and less evidence before conducting a search, ultimately reducing the Fourth Amendment to a formality, rather than a requirement under law.
This decision by the court brings to mind the infamous quote from Donald Trump, who said last year, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Obviously this case has nothing to do with the president, but both Trump’s thoughts on the confiscation of property and the Court’s belief that intentions outweigh constitutional procedure reflect a disinterest by the federal government and its agencies in respecting the Constitution.
Given the federal government’s long history of misconduct, abuse of authority, and general missteps, law enforcement agencies cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. They must be held to the highest possible standards, which must be reinforced by the Courts. Until then and after, always request a lawyer and never consent to a search.
I wanted to see if this site accepted my previous short post, so here is my more substantial comment.
The “warrant” generally is, and has been, a joke. I had an event befall my family over a dozen years ago and it changed my thinking forever.
I sat at home one evening, having done nothing at all (a difference between my instance and this Seventh Circuit ruling). Police came to my door about 7 pm, guns drawn and seeing me through my open glass door and un-shaded front windows. Working on my computer in plain sight, purportedly even “surveilled” earlier, what threat could I possibly have been? I answer the front door, clearly seeing familiar policemen, and am grabbed by the wrist and commanded (pulled) to come out, this by a supervisor. I immediately thought there was a bomb in my house. Let the bum-rush begin…but no one ever, EVER simply says…”search warrant.”
In my case there was no warrant at all, but I did not think of that back then, given my having no criminal history; backdating was sometime later performed by a clown whom I now call “THE HONORABLE JUDGE BACKDATE.”
I was there that evening; my critical thinking is intact and I know what happened and did not happen, as well as what was there and what was not there. I will not relate each and every thought which supports what I know to be the serial unlawfulness of this event. I will just highlight only the star points.
I have since read a great deal about the jurisprudence and statutes of search and seizure law.
Ask one thing (the Seventh Circuit instant case undermines this thought I have had for some time): will we ever see, as a regular mandate, an officer show his so-claimed signed warrant, then its underlying affidavit, and the subject house upon which said warrant will immediately be served…in one seamless body cam video?!?
NOPE. You gotta have that big time lapse where you can get your story together and put it all down in ways to support your law enforcement mission, without stepping on your gun by way of bringing any event too far forward in time. In other words, gotta git yer story straight. Funny how that body cam video disappears at the “wrong” time, but I digress, besides citizen, you are not “constitutionally guaranteed” body cams.
In addition, my designate incompetent “lead detective” ( 2 conspicuously silent supervisors in the war party at my front door) later asked me to sign a “consent to search.” Think about that… think. For you non-lawyers, a request for consent to search means…the police have no search warrant. Of course the consent should not (will not) have a police department logo and, for God’s sake, no signature from said “lead officer.” That way it could be said that a clever “criminal suspect” (like me or you) later confabulated said consent form. See, you’re thinking about it even now. I never saw any contraband, and I guarantee that there is no video showing that, among many other things. Too much snipping and editing to extract only the points which would exclusively not show police misconduct.
Remember that homeowner in the movie “Training Day,” where Denzel’s character bum-rushes said homeowner (awww, maybe a tenant), and the homeowner finally says, “hey, lemme see that warrant.” That is the reason for the manufactured chaos by police at your front door where none exists; gotta have a reason for “detaining” folks, though to clarify, grabbing someone in their home is a SEIZURE!!! No matter the title for the arrest, if no one is fleeing or resisting, there is not detainment; there is a seizure. Again, no video I bet.
Of course, for now jurisprudentially, it is bad news for there to be a willful lie (crooked defense lawyers like to call this an inaccuracy) in support of a purported warrant in the form of a false affidavit/application. That is where the clever police defense lawyers later come up with their clients’ justifications. You see, if guilty of falsifying an affidavit (never mind the “whole truth” being “omitted” often times; you and I perform that omission, and we are in jail) there is a chance of reprisal. But one would think this is rare given the common news reports. Police seem to bat 1000.
What if police shoot someone, based upon a “warrant execution” based upon a lie in a presumed affidavit, even a lie of omission, especially if the omission is a police search??? That is why police MUST find something. Remember, once in your house, it’s carte blanche. Who is going to limit a warrant to its supposed listed prescriptions? Who is going to curb overreach? Damn, body cam still ain’t workin’ !
Funny, I spoke with one former friend/policeman who anchors to the concept that basically every action is fair game, except planting of evidence. Well damn, that’s reassuring! Doberman making the rules of the game.
Here is what is sad: the violation in my case occurred BEFORE any warrant application or so-called execution. It does not matter if anything is later (I said LATER) “found” or not; this could be a coercive discovery to a potential plaintiff-citizen wanting to sue police. Can you say plea bargain? THERE, THERE is part of the reason for this perverse ruling; to support police protectionism.
Someone was supposedly previously sent into my house to search it; this was the “omission” by a designate incompetent lead officer. Think I mighta had a couple of crooked defense lawyers? My one-sided appeal is “not designated for publication,” and of course the part that is on the web is redacted all to hell.
But have you read how many of these “defenders of justice” are getting caught dirty here of late? Power corrupts.
I don’t hate police; I hate police misconduct. Don’t press me too hard on what I do and do not hate out of all this.
This sorry ruling (hope the Gestapo don’t show up tonight) supports all the crap I have briefly shared with you, in addition to lots more crap to come. There is a reason the police did not “seek” their warrant; I just don’t know what it is.
Der SS iss in control