• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The purpose of a search warrant.

B

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
7,577
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Everyone has to remember the purpose of the search warrant is not to prove that a crime has been committed. That is the point of a trial. The search is to find out some more information on which a prosecutor might make a better decision on whether a crime has been and whether it is prudent to further investigate and possibly charge. In other words, finding nothing does not mean a mistake was made to seek and execute one ,any more than not finding enough to move forward, or finding a smoking gun is. The justification for the search, is in making a better call, a smarter call based on what is learned from the search. Investigations are worth doing because they answer the question 'yes' or 'no', not just if the answer 'yes'. Garland should not get trapped into allowing media to write a new narrative, where the search is seen as an overreach or a blunder, if it does not lead to a charge, and later a trial.

Actually, the search can be seen as a success if the DOJ gains more insight on the possibility and if the retrieval of those highly classified documents means they are returned to safety. Asserting that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed to gain a search warrant, does not constitute a promise to file a charge. Maybe this was the plan all along.

Prosecutors have a lot of discretion on when to file charges and when it is unwise to, and I fully support letting them use it free of political considerations or pressure, even if they decide not to file any against Trump.
 
btthegreat said:
Everyone has to remember the purpose of the search warrant is not to prove that a crime has been committed. That is the point of a trial. The search is to find out some more information on which a prosecutor might make a better decision on whether a crime has been and whether it is prudent to further investigate and possibly charge. In other words, finding nothing does not mean a mistake was made to seek and execute one ,any more than not finding enough to move forward, or finding a smoking gun is. The justification for the search, is in making a better call, a smarter call based on what is learned from the search. Investigations are worth doing because they answer the question 'yes' or 'no', not just if the answer 'yes'. Garland should not get trapped into allowing media to write a new narrative, where the search is seen as an overreach or a blunder, if it does not lead to a charge, and later a trial.

Actually, the search can be seen as a success if the DOJ gains more insight on the possibility and if the retrieval of those highly classified documents means they are returned to safety. Asserting that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed to gain a search warrant, does not constitute a promise to file a charge. Maybe this was the plan all along.

Prosecutors have a lot of discretion on when to file charges and when it is unwise to, and I fully support letting them use it free of political considerations or pressure, even if they decide not to file any against Trump.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in independent oversight of the process or do you think we should trust that everything they do is in the peoples best interests?
 
trouble13 said:
Do you believe in independent oversight of the process or do you think we should trust that everything they do is in the peoples best interests?
Click to expand...
We have independent oversight. Law enforcement must convince a judge that a crime likely has been committed, that there a very high probabilty that there evidence at the site being searched, and that there is no other reasonable way to obtain the evidence. That is what judges do is provide oversight in the criminal justice process while protecting the rights of those under investigation.

www.law.cornell.edu

search warrant

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
trouble13 said:
Do you believe in independent oversight of the process or do you think we should trust that everything they do is in the peoples best interests?
Click to expand...
And who will oversee the independent overseers? Turtles all the way down.
 
trouble13 said:
Congress
Click to expand...
Idiotic. That is beyond nuts. You want to turn law enforcement into a political issue? It isn't even remotely practical nor legal. Do you even understand how our government is suppose to work? Perhaps you like to review (perhaps read for the first time) our Constitution and tell us what congressional power you wish to fit this inside.

At this point you are just trolling you are smarter than that as that is the most asinine idea presented on this forum in months.
 
For the sake of clarity I am having a general discussion on the issue. I am not making this about Trump. I am curious where people stand on the subject of oversight in our legal system.

Imo we need to be wary of how much power we give to law enforcement on all levels. We can not give them too little to keep law and order not can we give them too much so they can oppress. There's a sweet spot we must find between the two.
 
trouble13 said:
For the sake of clarity I am having a general discussion on the issue. I am not making this about Trump. I am curious where people stand on the subject of oversight in our legal system.

Imo we need to be wary of how much power we give to law enforcement on all levels. We can not give them too little to keep law and order not can we give them too much so they can oppress. There's a sweet spot we must find between the two.
Click to expand...
I don't see what your solution is. It does seem to be about blaming the FBI for Trump's crimes.
 
upsideguy said:
Idiotic. That is beyond nuts. You want to turn law enforcement into a political issue? It isn't even remotely practical nor legal. Do you even understand how our government is suppose to work? Perhaps you like to review (perhaps read for the first time) our Constitution and tell us what congressional power you wish to fit this inside.

At this point you are just trolling you are smarter than that as that is the most asinine idea presented on this forum in months.
Click to expand...
You need to rethink what you just posted. I'm not trying to insult you but it's very wrong. Congress currently performs the task of oversight.

For instance if they don't like a judge they have the power to impeach and remove that judge.
 
Jacksprat said:
I don't see what your solution is. It does seem to be about blaming the FBI for Trump's crimes.
Click to expand...
I'm not offering any solution. I am having a discussion. Forget Trump. I think we can all agree that we need limitations on what law enforcement is empowered to do and what they are prohibited from doing.
 
trouble13 said:
I'm not offering any solution. I am having a discussion. Forget Trump. I think we can all agree that we need limitations on what law enforcement is empowered to do and what they are prohibited from doing.
Click to expand...
That's fine. I am just not seeing what the problem is.
 
trouble13 said:
If the oversight is done by elected officials and they are doing a bad job the voters can replace them
Click to expand...
You've created another one of your rabbit holes. You haven't said anything about how this would work and are only spouting useless generalities.
 
reflechissez said:
The problem is that trump got a search warrant, so now they don't trust the FBI.
Click to expand...
I did not trust the FBI long before they went after Trump. I don't trust any law enforcement. I think it's naive to view them as friends. It far more prudent to regard them as a necessary evil.
 
trouble13 said:
I did not trust the FBI long before they went after Trump. I don't trust any law enforcement. I think it's naive to view them as friends. It far more prudent to regard them as a necessary evil.
Click to expand...
All government, in that sense, is a necessary evil.
 
trouble13 said:
I have not suggested there is a problem. I'm asking what limits are considered reasonable ones to put on law enforcement.
Click to expand...
If there is no problem then the system works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom