Well, except for the fact that federal courts have ruled that extending a traffic stop to bring in a dog for a sniff is unconstitutional -- so shipping luggage hundreds of miles away for a dog sniff after a local judge found there was insufficient justification for a search warrant would be even less likely to pass.
Person A writes a review of something, and transfers ownership of the rights to that review to Review Site B.
Person C considers that review defamatory so they sue Person A, and either Person A is never informed of the lawsuit, the lawsuit is in a court that lacks jurisdiction or Person A just doesn't bother to show up -- resulting in a default judgment. But Review Site B was not named in the lawsuit, and is not a party to it in any way.
So how can the court seize B's property and give it to C, when it was A who lost the lawsuit and A does not own the property that is to be seized?
It seems to me that there is enormous potential for abuse there if it's a valid court order. Go out and sue your next door neighbor, win, and demand the court award Disney's ownership of Star Wars to you? How on Earth could that possibly be valid?
The thing is, private citizens are expected to learn the law well enough to avoid breaking it, by virtue of having graduated from mandatory schooling.
But police also have that level of education, plus training from a college or police academy on top of it. By any standard, while police are hardly trained to the standard of a lawyer in the law, they ARE more educated in it than a private citizen is.
How is it that they can get more latitude on knowledge of the law despite having more training, than people who have less knowledge?
Simple. Police who are accused of wrongdoing are treated as innocent until proven guilty -- that's what it looks like when someone is treated as innocent, prior to being proven guilty. That's how it's supposed to work -- for everyone.
But the corruption of the legal system comes into play when ONLY police and other officials are treated as the law mandates everyone be treated. Non-officials are treated as guilty until proven innocent these days.
Exactly. So what if police exaggerated the danger on the warrant application? So what if the small time drug pusher didn't REALLY have fifteen thermonuclear bombs in his sock drawer? You can't know for sure until you go look!
My current lease has a poorly-written clause in it that threatens eviction if you violate it.
The clause in question flatly prohibits any electrical, gas or solid fuel device that produces heat from the apartment without prior written consent of the landlord. It goes on to say that written consent will NOT be given unless sought in advance. Each copy of the lease includes a page for individual items to be listed as having consent.
As the clause is phrased, it applies to everything in the apartment from the baseboard heaters to the hot water heater, from the stove to the refrigerator. The intent of the landlord was to stop people from using gas, electric or charcoal grills inside the apartment or out on the balcony, but it so broadly written it could be read to prohibit FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
None of the landlord-installed devices that are physically wired into the structure of the apartment (stove, baseboard heaters, water heater, overhead lighting, etc) are on the approved list for my lease. Nor are any of the plugged-in but landlord-supplied appliances, such as the refrigerator.
And as written, it is the tenant's (not the landlord's) duty to remove all unapproved devices under penalty of eviction!
Unsurprisingly, everybody in the building is ignoring that clause, including the property manager.