Is to make it more difficult for either the State or indidividuals in law enforcement from framing an innocent person. The Police have to go before a Judge and present clear evidence that there is probable cause in order for a warrant to be issued. That the warrant must be clear as to the things to be seized. Previously, the Courts have ruled that in the case of hot pursuit, a warrant is not necessary. That's fine. They would have to prove in Court, later, that they actually were in hot pursuit.
But essentially this Court Ruling is simply stating that the Police or the State, would never dream of lying; that they would never, ever even wish to frame someone for political purposes. Or that if deep down in their hearts, know someone is a criminal, they would never ever lie about this. Basically this means that there is no Fourth Amendment, and no requirement for a warrant.
I think your Statemen William Pitt the Elder best summed this up...
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”
And what is going to happen when some terrified home owner shoots a Cop who is breaking down their door?
Dave
