Wow, unreal that she could approve such a warrant. Even in the absence of a federal statute it seems like a crazy step to take.
The 4th amendment isn’t worth anything if judges will sign off on everything that crosses their desk.
If there was a statistically relevant problem, we wouldn’t hear about this sort of malfeasance in the news.
The fact that there is almost always one or another incident making the news only indicates that rare events occur frequently at sufficiently large scale.
The overwhelming majority of search and arrest warrants are authorised because they should be, and, well, like any job role, mistakes shouldn’t be dealt with by disciplinary action that results in the work being ground to a halt.
Where serious wrong doing occurs we should expect disciplinary action, and we do see that occasionally as it makes the news.
There’s definitely an argument to be made that maybe some police are too prone to abuse their powers, but the answer isn’t perfect law enforcement, the answer is how much malfeasance and corruption is tolerable, because we’ll never have none, and the only thing worse than corruption is perfect law enforcement.
The judiciary and law enforcement absolutely must be held to a higher standard which does not accept mistakes. They are not 'any job role' -- these people have the authority to take away your livelihood, if not your life. The standard they must be held to should be perfection and nothing less. Any deviation from such should be treated as harshly as the worst criminals are.
> Where serious wrong doing occurs we should expect disciplinary action
_Any_ wrongdoing by law enforcement is serious.
> the answer is how much malfeasance and corruption is tolerable, because we’ll never have none
Just because we won't ever end up at 'none' doesn't mean we need to be accepting of anything less. Zero malfeasance, zero corruption. Anything but those should be burned out as a cancer, even if that burning out needs to be literal.