Knock Knock... (Recent SC Search Warrant Ruling)

Procrastastudy

Surprised no one has mentioned:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0305/1224312777010.html

Thoughts?

McCrack

Nothing turns on it to be honest, it just saying that the Garda officer issuing must be disconnected from the actual investigation to as to remain or at least be seen to be somewhat objective.

It's a bit of a falsehood because in reality Garda officers will issue warrants for colleagues on reasonable request. Many Judges do it too, as in they do not really apply any testing of grounds to the member requesting it. Rubber stamp if you will.

MagicSean

McCrack wrote: »

Nothing turns on it to be honest, it just saying that the Garda officer issuing must be disconnected from the actual investigation to as to remain or at least be seen to be somewhat objective.

It's a bit of a falsehood because in reality Garda officers will issue warrants for colleagues on reasonable request. Many Judges do it too, as in they do not really apply any testing of grounds to the member requesting it. Rubber stamp if you will.

Nothing turns on it? Are we reading the same case? The one I'm reading dramatically reduces the Garda ability to act urgently to prevent serious crimes. I highly doubt those judges have given out of hours contact numbers for when a warrant is needed in an emergency.

castie

MagicSean wrote: »

Nothing turns on it? Are we reading the same case? The one I'm reading dramatically reduces the Garda ability to act urgently to prevent serious crimes. I highly doubt those judges have given out of hours contact numbers for when a warrant is needed in an emergency.

Also dramatically increases the chances of the warrant being fair.

If someone is involved in a case and they think they have a suspect and want to search their home its stupid that them or someone involved can issue a warrant to do so.

Processes of looking and granting must be seperate.

Victor

Its interesting that it took 35 years for it to be challenged. The rest of the section bears the hall marks of being re-worded to prevent petty challenges, e.g. including the ability to search hovercraft.

In declaring that section 29 (1)* of the Offences against the State Act is unconstitutional, does section 29 merely become blank? The original section 29(1) doesn't replace it?

Why declare the section unconstitutional when they could have merely declared that the individual action was unconstitutional? Surely, one officer could decide on the case of another officer, not in his chain of command?

Does the Supreme Court prefer if District Court judges are woken at 3am instead of Superintendents?


* As inserted by Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976. Comparison attached.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0029.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0032/sec0005.html

murrayp4

Victor wrote: »

Its interesting that it took 35 years for it to be challenged. The rest of the section bears the hall marks of being re-worded to prevent petty challenges, e.g. including the ability to search hovercraft.

Won't be letting anyone search my hovercraft that's for sure. (Save in accordance with law)

castie

Are hot air balloons covered?

Lower down distribute your "products" fly back up! (Never touching the ground!)