The 4th Amendment and the Raid

Richard Easton
Richard Easton
41162151
 

The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I’ve read that the FBI resisted showing Trump’s lawyer the warrant. How is this legal? I don’t trust the FBI or DOJ. Unless proven otherwise, I assume that they’re partisan Democratic hacks. Can anyone explain their reluctance to show the warrant?

Published in Law
Join Ricochet!
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet
  1. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale
    6:57 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2022

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Hoyacon:

    I don’t know about the FBI resisting, but I’m pretty sure they were given a copy of the warrant.

    Ya which they wouldn’t show to Trump’s attorneys:

    From the Epoch Times:

    “About two dozen FBI agents entered Trump’s Palm Beach resort of Mar-a-Lago around 9 a.m. on Aug. 8 and left about 10 hours later with “a handful of boxes of documents,” one of Trump’s attorneys on scene, Christina Bobb, told The Epoch Times.

    “I didn’t actually get to oversee the search, they wouldn’t let anybody see what they were doing,” she said.

    It isn’t clear what legal basis the FBI had for the raid. The agents had a search warrant signed by a judge, however, the affidavit explaining the basis—its probable cause—was filed under seal and Trump’s lawyers weren’t allowed to examine it, Bobb said.”

    Nothing there say anything about not showing the warrant to Trump’s attorney. She has been recently interviewed and stated that she was shown the warrant before the search and given a copy after it.

    That’s not what I read. I read that she got nothing before the raid and only got to look at it afterwards. No copy provided.

    You’re talking about two different things:  The Affidavit supporting the warrant, and the warrant itself:

    The agents had a search warrant signed by a judge, however, the affidavit explaining the basis—its probable cause—was filed under seal and Trump’s lawyers weren’t allowed to examine it

     

    The warrant has to be shown at time of execution.  The affidavit does not.

     

     

    • #31
  2. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin
    8:22 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2022

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure some lawyers can come tell us how the law has to be interpreted to not mean what it says.

     

    Yeah, and now I’m hearing that there was a “spy” in the Trump household. Would like to hear more about that.

    You will. That’s from Newsweek initially.

    Yeah, Jesse is talking about it now.

    This?

     

    • #32
  3. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin
    8:24 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2022

    Hilarious that the media is all upset about using the word “raid.”

    Guaranteed that online dictionaries will have “raid” redefined by tomorrow.

    This regime is all about redefining words to cover for their evil actions.

    • #33
  4. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree
    8:25 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2022

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure some lawyers can come tell us how the law has to be interpreted to not mean what it says.

     

    Yeah, and now I’m hearing that there was a “spy” in the Trump household. Would like to hear more about that.

    You will. That’s from Newsweek initially.

    Yeah, Jesse is talking about it now.

    This?

     

    Yup

    • #34
  5. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin
    8:30 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2022

    Josh Hawley was very good, too, and I hope he helps other Republicans find their balls.

     

    • #35
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad
    6:19 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2022

    No doubt the FBI planted evidence as well as bugs.  Oh, and watch for pictures of Melania’s underwear to start appearing on the Internet . . .

    • #36
  7. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker
    8:40 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2022

    Stad (View Comment):

    No doubt the FBI planted evidence as well as bugs. Oh, and watch for pictures of Melania’s underwear to start appearing on the Internet . . .

    On Etsy.

    • #37
  8. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton
    10:54 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2022

    By all means let’s discuss this wholly unprecedented abuse of power.  Do folks still think there is going to be a fair Election in November, some places of course, but the result will be just enough to keep Democrat control.  Then two years later the 24 election will be wholly straight forward?   If we don’t prepare for fraud we’re going to lose it all and since the Chinese control the biggest of the crooks where does our country end up?   

    • #38
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad
    12:52 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2022

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    No doubt the FBI planted evidence as well as bugs. Oh, and watch for pictures of Melania’s underwear to start appearing on the Internet . . .

    On Etsy.

    Yeah, I was thinking of Ebay, but good enough!

    • #39
  10. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker
    4:30 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2022

    I Walton (View Comment):

    By all means let’s discuss this wholly unprecedented abuse of power. Do folks still think there is going to be a fair Election in November, some places of course, but the result will be just enough to keep Democrat control. Then two years later the 24 election will be wholly straight forward? If we don’t prepare for fraud we’re going to lose it all and since the Chinese control the biggest of the crooks where does our country end up?

    Yes.  Is an election with an end result of a false 51% to 49% victory really “stolen”?  I think not, it’s too close to call actual fraud. /sarc

    • #40
  11. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion
    4:23 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 12, 2022

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    What do you believe the facts to be, regarding the warrant being shown or not?

    I have no idea why you would believe any news reports about such things, at this time. I have no idea what your source or sources might be fore this claim about someone “resisting” showing a warrant or being “reluctant” to show a warrant. If it’s a news story, what are the story’s sources.

    Bobb, Trump’s lawyer said, on video, that she was refused the warrant, and then they held it up for her to see from a distance of 10 feet.

    Yeah, but that was for her own personal Idaho safety.

    • #41
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet