That’s what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled in U.S. vs. Hector:

Unlike many Fourth Amendment cases, here no one disputes that there was a valid search warrant issued by a state court judge on a showing of probable cause. Instead, the challenge is focused on whether there is a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be presented with a copy of the search warrant at the time of the search, whether a defendant’s probationary status affects this analysis, and whether the claimed constitutional violation merits suppression of the seized evidence. . . .

...the officer obtained a state court warrant to search Hector’s apartment for cocaine and related paraphernalia, including currency and firearms. . . .

At some point during the search, the officers presented Hector with a “Search Warrant Notice of Service.” The Notice of Service did not list either the address of the premises to be searched or the items to be seized. ***** In granting Hector’s motion to suppress, the district court concluded that Hector’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the police officers failed to provide him with a copy of the search warrant. . . .

Regardless of whether the police officers had actually shown Hector the search warrant, they would have executed it and recovered the drugs and firearms inside his apartment. Thus, the acquisition of the evidence can hardly be characterized as a “fruit of the fact” that the officers failed to present the warrant.

Deciphering that from legalese a bit, what the 9th Circuit has ruled here is that there was no need for the officers to show the property owner an actual copy of the search warrant they had obtained, complete with the required definition of the areas to be searched and the items to be looked for, because the warrant was properly authorized and the police would have searched even if it had been presented to the property owner.  Granted, showing a property owner a warrant is something of a technicality, but isn’t it an important technicality?  How is a property owner to be assured that the officers doing the searching are properly authorized?  And are restricting themselves to searching only the areas authorized in the warrant?

And if property owners don’t need to see the warrant what is the 4th amendment’s requirement that government authorities obtain one for?  What good does it do?

It seems to me like we are on a path toward some dangerous territory in this country when it comes to government authority to search our homes.  Already we allow law enforcement to engage in “no knock” raids where officers crash into a residence, detain those inside and search the premise without any notification to the property owner.  I understand the justification for this.  Law enforcement wants to be able to get at the guns or drugs or whatever else they’re searching for before the property owner has chance to get rid of them.  But is that justification enough to override the need to notify the property owners of a properly-authorized warrant?

And what happens when law enforcement makes a mistake?  It happens more often than you realize.  All over the country there are instances of the police raiding the wrong house, sometimes resulting in the death of officers or civilians as frightened property owners fight back against people they see only as intruders.  And when a property owner opens fire or otherwise attacks police officers who have surprised him/her in their home, can we really blame that person for the deaths or injuries they cause?  Do they not have a right to defend their person and property?  And are the law enforcement officers, by not announcing their raid or showing a warrant, essentially unknown intruders?

These are some very serious questions we need to be asking ourselves lest we find our persons, homes and property totally open to search by any officer who can get a friendly judge to go along with his search request.