There's actually both. Case studies are done in Law school for students that are in Law school and case law is what's already on the books. So I gave you a HUGE area to recite from. I will wait.
Wow, you really have no clue what you are talking about to the point that you can't even use the correct terms in asking for things. Do you want me to "recite" (usually, you would say cite) discussions from law school classes as if they are binding or something? I am just laughing that you are asking for case law about how police with a search warrant, signed off on by the courts, get to search a residence. A search warrant is the court giving permission to search a residence.
I don’t need to cite cases to you. The warrant was signed by a judge based on a showing of probable cause. That is Facially Valid under the Fourth Amendment. Until the full application is reviewed, it is impossible to opine on the legality of the search. Because you don’t know the facts on which the warrant was based and if the warrant failed to establish probable cause or was otherwise defective. What we do know is that the warrant was addressed to information that was found. So we can intuit that the government had information to support the search. Once that video launched into a separation of powers argument, which was early, I stopped listening. Because Trump isn’t president. He has no article 2 powers any more. This was the search of a home. And the suggestion that a member of a coordinate branch of government is immune from a search is absurd. The warrant clause was instituted to prohibit practices that the British used to engage in by entering homes without cause and occupying them. I won’t watch a 48 minute gibberish video.
Lol, you really want me to explain why search warrants issued by the courts are not a violation of the 4th Amendment? Because, that is what they are: a way for police to search a residence without violating the 4th Amendment.
Did Trump illegally have boxes belonging to the National Archives in his possession? Yes. Did some of these boxes contain classified materials? Yes. Did the Archives try non-legal ways of getting these boxes back? Yes. Did Trump return some of the boxes? Yes. Did Trump return all the classified materials? No. Did Trump lie about returning all classified documents in a affidavit? Yes. Did the Archives then get the FBI involved? Yes. Did the FBI issue a subpoena for Trump to return the classified materials? Yes. Did Trump ignore the subpoena? Yes. At this point, after looking over these facts, how can you claim the FBI violated Trump's 4th Amendment rights with their raid on MAR?
Okay, sure. A search warrant is a court determining that investigators have provided enough probable cause of a crime to authorize a search of a property consistent with the 4th Amendment. So, short of some specific evidence of malfeasance, it is, on its face, consistent with the 4th Amendment. It is so simple that it is almost tautological.
Ok so let's say for kicks and giggles this chit blows up in your all's faces AGAIN, it already is like all of the other chit has for the last 7 years then what?
Like I said, nobody can opine on the sufficiency of the showing of probable cause without seeing the application. That is why I asked you to apply law to facts. You don’t have any