Let's review the Constitution.
Fourth Amendment
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.
Do you see "supported by Oath or affirmation"? That's not ambiguous, but
then, I'm not a judge. There is line of cases (that I admit I am
unfamiliar with) introducing ambiguity. The cop applying for a warrant
makes a sworn statement to the judge, but the warrant may be based on
what a witness observed. The witness didn't make a sworn statement to
the court, or even to the cop during interview.
This callous disregard in issuing warrants, in which the judge hasn't
heard directly from the person with the information upon which the
warrant is to be issued, leads to both unwitting errors and warrants
issued upon deliberately false statements. Lack of a sworn statement
means no consequences for the person who made the statement.
Raiding the wrong home can lead to the ultimate consequence: death.
Here's the Institute for Justice taking a case in which they would try
to get judges to interpret this very important civil right using the Constitution's plain language.
ARRESTED for Asking Trespasser to Get off HIS Porch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fye_JTGQ4y8
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)