Your Honor,
The Appellee believes the District Court's ruling is justified. The Appellant's appeal, as accepted for consideration by this court, is based on the 7th Fundamental Protection. However, Judge Wolfe clearly explained why there is no infringement on this right in her ruling, as seen here "An arrest warrant is not a suspicion that a person may have committed a crime, it is treated as a truth given to officers that the person did commit that crime, and gives them the legal authority to arrest that person. Furthermore, an officer having a warrant in the first place appears to fall under reasonable search and seizure, considering it is not prohibited to execute one without meeting certain requirements..."
and here "the officer(s) did not search through the owner’s belongings, which furthers the Court’s belief that the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure would not be breached in this scenario given a valid arrest warrant..."
There was no search for or seizure of evidence conducted. The Ministry had an active arrest warrant for the Appellant, and executed it. Moreover, as highlighted by Judge Wolfe: this is not privately owned property, this is government-owned property being rented out. The owner of the property, in this case, is the Azalea Isles Government, and so the argument that the "property owner" did not consent is void. Nor was any actual search of belongings conducted. The police accessed the property to execute the arrest warrant; they did not rifle through or seize belongings.
Furthermore, the Appellant refers to "legislative intent" that does not exist when referring to the warrant classes. The Appellee questions the Plaintiff's initial appeal, which states "the wording of the legislation quite clearly supports our interpretation..." - there is no legislation establishing the warrant classes. At best, they are a common law generalization that predates most of Azalea, which is why we are uncertain how the Appellant can ascertain the "legislative intent" of this.
Additionally, the intent seems quite clear to the Appellee. An arrest warrant authorizes the Ministry of Justice to go arrest an individual who has committed a crime. A search warrant authorizes the Ministry of Justice to search for evidence of a crime. In fact, that is what the Court Library explicitly states: "A court order authorizing law enforcement to search a specific location for evidence related to a crime. It requires probable cause and specifies the scope and limitations of the search."
Law enforcement had an active arrest warrant. They were not searching for evidence of a crime; they were accessing the government-owned property in accordance with the arrest warrant. The Appellee also wishes to highlight that the Appellant's claims of unreasonable search and seizure are with respect to one Bezzer Geezer, who is named in the appeal as the property owner. Yet the named Plaintiff and now-Appellant is not Mr. Bezzer Geezer, the individual whose rights were allegedly violated. Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development has already set a clear precedent against this type of third-party claim.
As such, we believe it is clear that the Appellant's right against unreasonable search and seizure was not violated. The Ministry of Justice properly executed their arrest warrant. A search warrant, by its own definition, was unneeded, and a search was not conducted. Therefore, with consideration of the entirety of our response, we ask Your Honor to reject this appeal and uphold the District Court's ruling.
