If you're upset that they issued a warrant to monitor Carter Page without holding a hearing, you might be interested in some other amazing details about how the system works. (Thread.)
The police are allowed to pull over and detain any driver if the driver is violating any traffic law. Even something super-technical like driving 46 mph in a 45 zone, and even if everyone else is going 60.
It doesn't matter if the officer is lacking in good faith. If a cop who hates Trump sees a car with a #MAGA bumper sticker driving 46 in a 45mph zone, the law is that the cop can pull over that driver b/c of that bumper sticker -- as long as the driver was actually speeding.
And this is true for other biases, too: If a racist police officer sees a driver who is African-American, the racist cop can pull over the car b/c of the driver's race -- as long as the driver was actually speeding.
In both cases, stopping and detaining the driver for illegitimate reasons isn't a violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures because that law looks to the evidence, not the officer's intent. See Whren v. US (1996)
Next say the officer pulls over the driver and it turns out the driver has committed a really minor crime, like having passengers without seatbelts. The officer can arrest the driver for that and haul the driver off to the police station. Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001)
Again, it doesn't matter if the arrest was in good faith or just that the officer just didn't like the driver's politics, or her personally, or her race, or anything else: As long as there was probable cause of the minor offense, the arrest is okay under the Fourth Amendment.
And what if state law has said that the police can't make an arrest for that minor offense? The Fourth Amendment says the police can arrest them anyway -- and then search them, and stuff on them (except for their cell phones). See Virginia v. Moore (2008); US v. Robinson (1973).
There's no hearing before making that arrest. Not only that, there's no warrant needed. The officer can make the arrest whenever there is probable cause. The govt then has 48 hours to bring you before a judge to see if the cop was right that he had enough cause to arrest you.
See US v. Watson (1976) (no warrant needed for arrest); City of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) (48 hours of detention generally okay before magistrate probable cause hearing).
And that could mean a strip search on being brought to jail after the arrest, even if the person was arrested for a minor offense and there is no reason to think the person was concealing a gun or drugs. See Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington (2012).
These rules give the government a lot of power. To condense a whole lot of legal reasoning into half a tweet, the Supreme Court has said these rules are right because the govt interest in enforcing the law is significant and outweighs the privacy interests or concerns of abuse.
Of course, the Supreme Court may be wrong. Maybe someday they'll overturn some of these cases. But whether those rules are good or bad, they're the rules of the day to day criminal justice system in this country.
If you're upset about how the Carter Page warrant was issued, I'm curious if these rules upset you, as well. Because they effect lots of people ( there were more than 10 million arrests made last year) most of whom aren't associated with the Trump campaign. /end
