With all the gafawing about the bill (666) which just flew by, and the "Dem's" running off about how the constitution is being dismantled, I thought I would cite some case law. I direct your attention to _United States v. Leon_, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Justice White: This case presents the question whether the Fourth Ammendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution's case-in-chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. [...] The Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained by violation if its commands, and an examination of its orgin and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure "work[s] no new Fourth Amendment wrong." The wrong condemned by the Amendment is "fully accomplished" by the unlawful search or seizure itself, and the exclusionary rule is neither intended nor able to "cure the invasion of the defendant's rights which he has already suffered." The rule thus operates as "a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrant effect, rahter than a personal constitutional right of the person aggrieved." [...] First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. Second, there exists no evidence suggesting that judges and magistrates are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion. [...] [The exclusionary rule cannot be expected to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity...] This is particularly true, we believe, when an officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and acted within its scope. In most such cases, there is no police illegality and this nothing to deter. It is the magistrate's responsibility to determine whether the officer's allegations estlablish probable cause and, if so, to issue a warrant comporting in form with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. In the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate's probable-cause determination or his judgement that the form of the warrant is technically sufficent. "[O]nce the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law." Penalizing the officer for the magistrate's error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations. END. ++++ The bill is really just a restatement. This has been the state of the law for 11 years now. If the bill fails, the essence of the doctrine that everyone is concerned about stands in any event. The question is moot. -uni- (Dark) -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!