should judges issues warrants. why or why not?

Answer 1

They should issue a warrant if the police present lawfully obtained evidence that supports their suspicion that a particular person has done wrongdoing. Merely having a "hunch" isn't enough -- they must be able to tell the judge something about what they observed or something a witness told them, etc.

They should not blindly issue a warrant just because the police ask for one -- the warrant must be (drum roll please) warranted. This blind issuance of warrants is legal (in name only, not constitutionally) under the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Under it, judges MUST issue a warrant when asked -- which takes out the check of power that the Judicial branch should have.

Answer 2

Who else would do it? The entire concept of checks and balances is that no one branch have all the power.

Legislators set the rules. Executive enforces the rules and executes the warrants. So, having a neutral magistrate (judge) issuing the warrants preseves the three-way balance.

Not only is that the way it's been done for centuries, but the only alternative would be to have the legislator or the executive branch do it. Which makes their actions unchecked.

Answer 3

judges DO issue warrants, and this is the best system we can come up with.

Answer 4

Yes, because they make sure there is enough reason for a warrant. If cops had it their way, they'd be able to search whenever and whatever they wanted.