I don't think magistrates rule on questions of law (maybe you were implying this, but maybe not). But in general the whole legal/justice system is basically blind to the harm it itself causes, so I don't think an actual judge looking at the merits of a warrant would be terribly adversarial to a sheriff either - they work together all the time, and most of the warrants presented by the sheriff are legitimate.

I do agree with you in general that we should aim to split system functions between multiple people. But this merely raises the bar, it doesn't make corrupt actions impossible. Which means we should be focusing on both avenues of reform, rather than emphasizing one to downplay another. Especially as when you do this, the entrenched system seems to takes advantage of the downplaying while resisting the solution being emphasized.

▲

ikeboy 20 days ago | parent [-]

Magistrates are supposed to verify that the warrant contains probable cause and reject ones that don't.

You could make the system more adversarial at that point, although I think enforcing bail hearings where a public defender can argue would help in this and many other cases.

▲

mindslight 20 days ago | parent [-]

Shooting from the hip, I'd think a properly adversarial/just process would be something like a public defender (or other attorney of the person's choosing) who is paid out of government funds. Then there should probably be different classes of warrants, with the lowest class being something like the person is notified and able to choose their representation to challenge the warrant before it's even issued (presumably non-violent, no flight risk, etc), with escalating classes based on those factors.

But even then, abuse of that classification is something that could routinely happen and would need to be punished post-facto. Imagine the same sheriff looking to perform the same retaliation, so he checks all the boxes for a no-notice no-knock warrant that still results in an arrest with a weekend in jail. Which is why my main point is that we shouldn't argue against one avenue of reform with the goal of emphasizing a different one.

▲

ikeboy 20 days ago | parent [-]

My concern is that new crimes will be weaponized.

	▲	mindslight 20 days ago \| parent [-]
		As opposed to the current status quo where would-be criminal actions of public officials against otherwise-uninvolved private citizens go unpunished? I don't find this argument compelling, as it would still at least limit the blast radius to people who get involved in public office. And once again there isn't much that can be done about corrupt public officials unjustly prosecuting/persecuting former officials as it comes down to that same human problem rather than a system problem - regardless of whether there is or isn't criminal liability for actions adjacent to official acts, they are still subject to the rest of the law! For example James was persecuted under the guise of having defrauded an unrelated agency in a personal capacity, independent of her actions as an official being what drew the aggro. Those persecutions of Comey and James basically rely on a post-truth electorate that doesn't care, and who chose to reelect a destructive tyrant who repudiates our American values merely to stick a fork in the eye of "the elites". And while we can also talk about ways of reforming the system to prevent that (eg Constitutional amendment that explicitly divides power amongst independent agencies), I don't think it has much bearing on how we should be drawing legal lines in the sand to constrain public officials.