Warren Court, Justice Justice Louis Brandeis, Ohio discussed on John Batchelor
Side is map versus Ohio. What does this tell us about how the war in court addressed the fourth amendment issue that you just spoke to? I'm sorry. The Warren court was interesting. I they try to really expand the idea of privacy of beyond were had been historically. Understood. They tried. Summit successfully to make it very difficult for the government to ever use information that came upon without a warrant. So if you look at the text of the fourth amendment, it says to Shelby, no unreasonable searches that's the first part. And then the second part the amendment says, and there should be no warrants issue except on probable cause of a crime. So specific specificity. So what the Warren court did is it merged those two phrases. And it said there can be no searches without a want kind of read the word reasonable out. And so matters is the court said if the government does a search if it collects information and didn't have a warrant about you. Then it'll be suppressed it won't be allowed to be used at trial. Even a great liberal Justice Justice Louis Brandeis complained about this. And he said because the constable stumbled does that mean guilty criminal shall go? Free. This complaint was. If we want to correct, how does searches let's regulate the garment, but that doesn't mean that we should let people who are guilty of committing crimes go free as the remedy for. It is often held up as one of the great examples of the Warren court's activism that they stepped in and basically said the federal courts in the supreme court alternately, we're going to review how every police department police officer in the country does their job I learned from you that there's another case for the war in court. That is helpful to understand the challenge for the Roberts court here in the digital universe that we live in that is cats versus United States nineteen sixty seven how does that illustrate the war in courts carefulness with regard the fourth amendment and warrants? So this is the interesting thing is cats is in the late sixties, but what is grappling with is merchants of telephone which was much much earlier lakes, and again under the old doctrine now talking about if you had sent something off, you know, giving it away to third party the courts generally said Venice, no longer private. So seems you keeping your house on your person. You know with the fourth McCall's your home's persons affects papers, those would be protected. So cats was a case about a phone booths course now catches a relevant 'cause you never see any phone booths anymore. I was trying to remember the last time I saw public. But so casual about public phone booth and the government wiretap did. And they said when they record phone call as he was a mobster. They said guy was running illegal gambling. And those governments said look he's out in public. He's using public phone booths. How can anyone think he has a right to privacy? And public would hear the Warren court really tried to create a kind of framework to race to address these new questions of the new technology the telephone, and they said, he's the interesting thing, they they're not going to draw bright lines. These things are private theses are not private what they're gonna do say does society believes.