|
Entitled under what statute? We live in a culture where everyone thinks they're "entitled" to just about anything they want.
|
I would be inclined to agree with you that Brady's choice of the word "entitled" is not correct. However I would agree with a statement to the effect that the "victims" (also a contentious word in this context)
should be entitled to compensation.
I say that the term "victim" is contentious in this context because it can easily be argued that if the proper procedure has been followed in this case, there is no wrongdoing for the subject of such as search to
be the victim of. The term "victim" clearly implies wrong doing or ill treatment according to my dictionary.
With that said, I personally sympathise with Brady's use of the term here. I believe that the family in this case were indeed treated badly by the police. I merely wish to point out that if the court has stated that proper procedure has been followed, then that is the legal fact of the matter.
|
Quote:
lso, how exactly did they conduct the search wrongly? They went to the location described by the warrant and conducted a search. Seems pretty straightforward.
|
I must admit that there is a case to be made that the search was
not conducted wrongly. The Fourth Amendment states that a search must be supported by a warrant, and that the issue of a warrant must be supported by probable cause. The definition of probable cause is that there must be a
reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, not an absolute certainty. It is possible to have a reasonable belief that does not prove to be true in fact.
However, the warrant was not valid. The reason for that is there was no probable cause to implicate the current owners of the house in question. No real attempt had apparently been made to verify such important details before the search was conducted. The warrant was effectively no longer valid or necessary. The failiure to confirm these details is negligence, pure and simple.
That's why some compensation
should be due to these people. A search usually entails some degree of property damage, not to mention fear and distress for the innocent. Can you really say it was a reasonable search, when the people who were actually being investigated had moved away? If not, then it should properly fall under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Not because they were innocent, but because the warrant wasn't truly valid, in the absense of probable cause.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
85242
35212
Soluzar