RE: [DL] The West and the 4th Amendment

["Alan Hoyland" <ahoyland@attbi.com>]

4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The judge decides
what is reasonable.
For instance if a police man sees a wanted criminal enter a building
judges have decided that the law officer can enter the building with out
a warrant to look for the person. The idea being the in the time it
takes to get a warrant the fugitive will reasonable be expected to flee
the location.
Further judges have long recognized the difference between civilized
areas and frontier.
These differences remain in the court system today. The legal precedence
surrounding guns for the courts west of the Mississippi is different
from the legal precedence east of the Mississippi. A ruling from the
Supreme Court would be necessary to unify the precedence. By refusing
all cases that would force such a ruling the Supreme Court continues to
recognize the difference between urban and rural.

Finally; why would anyone hide anything in the house? This was a time
when houses don't have locks. Neighbors are likely to enter the house
looking for you if no one responded to their knocking on the door.
At the same time there are vast tracks of unoccupied lands, abandon
farms, ranches, caves, mines, etc where no one is likely to go. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-deadlands@gamerz.net [mailto:owner-deadlands@gamerz.net]
On
> Behalf Of Sitting Duck
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 8:36 AM
> To: deadlands@gamerz.net
> Subject: [DL] The West and the 4th Amendment
> 
> Would anyone know how frequently law men of the West
> woud even bother to get a search warrant when
> theorectically required? It would seem (particularly
> in areas that rely on circuit judges) that getting one
> in a timely manner would be near impossible.