Comment: ok

(See in situ)


true, it is caselaw.

That is what common law is, caselaw.

We inherited the common law system from England. In a civil law system, all that would exist would be the statute or in this case, the Constitutional clause. There would be no caselaw interpreting it. People on this site seem to both love the common law, which some think should be the only thing that exists, and hate it, and think it shouldn't exist at all.

In a system where there was no common law/caselaw, you would have a Court decide things fresh each time it looks at an issue. Repeatability and predictability, to the extent they exist, would vanish. The ability to rig the system would increase and become much easier. The law is whatever the judge says it is on that given day. And there would be no caselaw to use for an appeal.

In this specific instance, a warrant exists for a specific thing. Officer John goes looking for that object. While there, he spies Adam Kokesh'es Big Groovy Shroom Stash sitting on the table. Officer John is lawfully on his premises, did nothing illegal to observe the shroom stash, it is thus analogous to something in plain view, like through a car window. The 4th Amendment does not address this scenario.

Case law does address this scenario and puts some limits on it. For me, I far prefer that to having no caselaw and leaving the interpretation up to the judge and the lawyers in that particular case. Freedom and liberty are more protected that way, though the process gets more complicated and intellectual. But that's just me.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein