What about "particular" in the 4th Amendment does Congress not understand?

[originalpckelly]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Doesn't anyone else give a damn about this? If people have been protesting this, it hasn't worked. What can we do to make sure people understand this?

[Dr.Phool]

1. Not just Congress. The courts to.

I had a 4th Amendment case back in 1985, where the police used an open -ended search warrant in a house I shared with several other people.

I took the case through state appeals, state supreme, and U.S. appeals, and decided to stop just before we went to the SCOTUS.

Lost every step of the way. We did get some interesting interpretations of the law along the way.

[longship]

2. The courts too.

to -- preposition. used for expressing motion or direction.
too -- adverb. in addition; also; furthermore.

For other DU homophone manglers:
there -- adverb. in or at that place (as opposed to here)
their -- pronoun. a form of the possessive case of "they".
they're -- contraction for "they are".

These two drive me crazy. I know that that's my problem, not yours.
But it would be nice if people would be more careful in their writing.
;-)

Peace.