Apr 30, 2007

WV Supreme Court Upholds the Constitution--4th ammendment requires police need warrant for wires

On WCHS talk radio today Mike Agnello unleashed another rant and gross distortion of a recent decision by the Supreme Court which merely limited police to their constitutional limits by requiring warrants for "wiring" informants in drug cases. Rick Johnson was edited by Agnello, who barely acknowledged the police could still proceed if they obtain a warrant. Their complaint? It is too impractical to get a warrant! Agnello says "this is not a partisan issue", yet he then sets up the controversial Brent Benjamin (republican, and the dissenting judge) as the example. Just who is making this partisan? Agreed--it should not be partisan, but a constitutional issue alone, like all issues should be. But the constitution is insufficient for Agnello's desire for an Italian-fascist police state (something he should recall from his ancestor's history). Of course being from Chicago, reknowned for its police corruption well-documented, he is merely aspiring to "conventionalize" West Virginia into the same jack-boot culture of arbitrary police powers.

Apparently Agnello wants a Fascist Police State where warrants are unnecessary and police are the local and unaccountable Gestapo which can kick in doors, sneak and peak, and spy and conduct surveillance without accountability or limits (and similar to America's New Government under the Bush administration since 9/11). What kind of America, or West Virginia, would that be? What would then restrain the police from entering anyone's home? What then would constitute "probable cause"--mere arbitrary suspicion? Politicizing this as he did also incites and inflames the ignorant public against the Constitution itself and emboldens police to enter into conflict with anyone who regards constitutional law as "suspicious" or hostile--increasing tension and potential violence between people and police! Hostility and disrespect can be expected to police who trample our precious Bill of Rights and also by talk show hosts who want and irresponsibly advocate to overthrow the "rule of law" defined in the Constitution for totalitarian police powers. For if the principle is violated for the inflamed and exaggerated cause of "drugs" then it will also be overthrown for any other purpose as well. The "plea of necessity" is the despots plea as the West Virginia Constitution itself states:

1-3. Continuity of constitutional operation.

The provisions of the constitution of the United States, and of this state, are operative alike in a period of war as in time of peace, and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.

The police merely have to get a warrant (something required since 1787), which states the evidence they want and expect to obtain, which is necessary for a conviction anyway. It is absolutely dangerous to empower police to act contrary to the constitution. Everyone needs to commit the 4th amendment to memory, and teach their children likewise, lest a political revolution lead to tyrannical police power and arbitrary government--something already well under way.

This is also very similar to the Federal government violation as well in domestic spying, where the violation is also discussed here:

NSA Eavesdropping and the Fourth Amendment

U.S. 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.