I was reading (or misreading) the US constitution and I remember reading about a part where (at some point) warrants must have 2 party consent. Meaning You must be notified and allow representation at the warrant hearing and lose that judgement, and at some point that was papered away to single party (the state).
Discussion
I don’t understand what you mean by 2 party consent
IIRC you must be notified, and you are allowed representation at a warrant request. You were allowed to "protest" a warrant. No jury just you (your representation) and the state and judge.
That’s wild they just threw that out lmao
Chances are I read that wrong, but that's how I understood it
From my very surface level AI “research,” it seems like two party consent applies to wire tap/recording and not search or arrest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’re probably thinking of the concept of two-party consent in the context of privacy laws, particularly regarding wiretapping and recording conversations, rather than warrants.
Two-Party Consent and the Constitution
There is no general constitutional requirement for two-party consent when it comes to law enforcement actions like search or arrest warrants. However, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which means that warrants must be issued based on probable cause and approved by a judge.
Two-Party Consent in Wiretapping and Recording Laws
• Some states require all parties in a conversation to consent before it can be legally recorded. This is called two-party (or all-party) consent.
• Other states only require one party to consent.
• The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) generally requires one-party consent, meaning as long as one person in the conversation agrees to the recording, it’s legal.
Could Warrants Have Ever Required Two-Party Consent?
There is no historical record of warrants themselves requiring the consent of both law enforcement and the person being searched. However, before modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, there were legal debates over how broadly authorities could conduct searches. Early American legal traditions were influenced by English common law, which heavily criticized “general warrants” (warrants that lacked specificity).
If you’re thinking of an old legal principle or a specific historical case, let me know and I can help track it down!
Unreasonable searches and seizures is the most vague and bullshit law ever lol it’s all subjective and gets abused regularly
Yeah, no doubt. Guess that was point of your original post
> You’re probably thinking of the concept of two-party consent in the context of privacy laws, particularly regarding wiretapping and recording conversations, rather than warrants.
Yeah that's not what I meant. It latched onto the "2 party consent part" unfortunately that was the best way I could phrase it.
Ah, figured there was something more to what you were saying.