Yep, society cooperates with law enforcement. It's been that way for about six or seven thousand years. In this case it was in response to search warrants. If you're not outraged, you've been paying enough attention.
Your vocabulary reveals your opinion more than anything else, but to be clear: how law enforcement works is exactly how it is working. A search warrant was executed as part of a criminal investigation, and while the target of that warrant wants to call it a "raid" and suggest it was somehow improper, all indications are that the investigation is underway and is moving at a pace appropriate to the level of charges.
I mean, complaints in this very thread are that "we have a right to know" after six months, it should surprise nobody that we don't, actually, until charges are filed, and that six months isn't a long time when investigating complicated cases.
The FBI does have a storied history, but in this case there have been many checks along the way, including judges appointed by and requested by the target of the investigation, so it's hard to see how this might line up with previous incidents involving Black activists.
What is unreasonable about a warrant? Where did this adversarial attitude to law enforcement come from? The whole reason we have a rich and functioning society is thanks to law.
I admit I wasn't thinking of search warrants. I was thinking of the times where I've had police in my domicile, all of which were in response to calls for assistance.
At least police obtained the data through the proper channels, securing a search warrant. I can't think of an argument against this being valid and reasonable.
Most people would be appalled if they saw what the police get away with when they ask for search warrants. In the two areas I have personal experience with, the process of getting a warrant is an administrative inconvenience to the police, not the fair review that it's supposed to be. It's also important to keep in mind that it's similar to a prosecutor getting an indictment -- it's the law enforcement side telling only their side of the story, twisting facts however they please with no rebuttal, being told to a judge that maintains regular working relationships with these people and whose main concern is making sure the affidavit covers their ass enough not to get overturned on an appeal.
Ummm... no, we have police for that. Of course, the police do not have access to anything and everything in any place at any time, which is why they sometimes need to go through the court in order to compel private entities to assist.
honestly, have you thought through anything that you're saying? How do you imagine any of this could possibly work in the way you imagine? You literally expect every subject of a warrant to conduct their own internal investigation as to the validity of said warrant, even though they have absolutely no right to not comply.
it's so unreasonable that it's comical; I don't even know why I continue to respond. You live in a fantasy land.
Which is funny since that's more or less how I've always heard, as a person outside of law enforcement, a warrant works. It provides permission to search for, often specific, evidence to seize.
Absolutely. But if the court challenges fail over this hypothetical warrant, there's a reasonable expectation for compliance. We live in a rule-based society. It works because people, and especially the government itself, are expected to follow those rules.
> I know for a fact that they don't fully cooperate even when law enforcement is involved.
Nor should they. Let's construct a little far-fetched case where police officer X tries to spy on woman Y and asks amazon to retrive information for account of Y. That's what a court order is supposed to restrict. The police actually can do very little without a warrant, and that's for a reason.
In Australia, you currently just have to suggest a peaceful protest for a search warrant to be issued against you. There are quite a few people who've been dragged off because of this. It's my understanding that everything is collected and analysed during these searches.
Your initial post didn't seem like a question as someone who doesn't live in the US, it seemed to me more like an accusation.
As someone from south america living in the EU it seems to me fairly strange that it's not immediately apparent that the sort of violence depicted from the police is completely unwarranted - I've seen police raids in both south america and in the EU, and this level of going in fully armed with military-grade gear is only reserved for the most extreme of cases and /always/ supported by a court order. There's no argument whatsoever in that search warrants with no body of evidence should involve SWAT-team levels of response, which clearly was not the case as there's enough evidence to go around that the search warrant is literally a piece of paper that anyone can invent without need to provide supporting evidence for their claims.
>...I think the bare minimum for an enforcement body to get a warrant is to reveal the information being used to get the warrant to the party being served the warrant.
Since when do we do that for police searches for crimes in progress?
Drug dealers are notified that the police are seeking a warrant on their address and given a chance to review the evidence?
There’s a very good reason we have the process of investigate > accuse > bring to court and in those cases the accused party is detained while the facts are reviewed and the matter decided. Judge-issued search warrants are done as a part of the investigation and the investigation itself is secret.
reply