(December 20, 2011 at 4:32 am)Perhaps Wrote: Interesting. Well the law enforcement officers had the right to seize the tents based on the plain view doctrine.
I don't dispute this at all. Seize [i.e. impound, pending due process], yes. Intentionally destroy, no.
(December 20, 2011 at 4:32 am)Perhaps Wrote: Lawyers and law makers have a special ability of rewording things to get what they want in the end.
No dispute on this either - even when the plain wording and intent of the constitutional is crystal clear. Would the law enabling this police behavior (assuming it's lawful to begin with) withstand a constitutional challenge? Maybe. I don't know.
What I believe is that the 4th Amendment was written with the intent of preventing these kinds of abuses - summarily depriving a citizen who is suspected of a crime of their property. If such a law did pass constitutional muster, I'd call it a perversion of justice.
As a reminder, these people have been convicted of nothing, and are presumed innocent - even if it seems obvious that they're in violation of the law.
