From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Steve Lehto highlights Institute for Justice case trying to restore
textual language of the Fourth Amendment that a judge must use to
consider an application for a search warrant. They are representing a
number of plaintiffs whose property wad subject to wrongful raids or who themselves were detained by police. Since 1960, when the Supreme Court
decision in Jones v. US allowed the use of evidence obtained in searches
based on warrants with hearsay evidence, the plain meaning of the text
of the Fourth Amendment no longer applied.


Arrests and Other Detentions

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.

If the warrant relies upon hearsay evidence, then there is no support
"by Oath or affirmation", which in the original meaning meant a witness
swore the oath. In the revised interpretation, a police office swears
that a third party was the witness. The police officer hasn't sworn
falsely because he's merely repeating what he was told.

I had to figure out which case it was because I never heard Lehto name
it. I assume it's a consolidated case but I am not sure.

As the issue doesn't affect corporations nor partisan politics, perhaps
the Roberts court will give an opinion in the interest of justice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPMHBzmmwsg https://ij.org/case/mendenhall-v-city-of-denver/
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2