A Right to Property Issue: Does The Government Own Evidence?

The Associate Press printed an article about the press versus the right of property in the case of the Columbine school shootings as you can see in this cite below.

But the gunmen's parents are fighting a newspaper's request for public release of the videos, audio recordings and writings Harris and Klebold made in the months before they killed 12 students and a teacher in April 1999.

According to the article the question before the court is whether the possessions in question are the governments and therefore public or are the parents and therefore private. Given the evidence as presented in this September 13, 2005 article by the reporter Jon Sarche, the ruling of the district judge is in line with the Constitution in the cite below.

A Jefferson County district judge has ruled that the documents, including a diary kept by Harris' father, should not be made public. But the state Court of Appeals last year ruled that the tapes and writings are public records and ordered the judge to consider whether their release would be contrary to the public interest.

The 5th Amendment of the Constitution is specific on how the government can take over ownership of property as you can see in this cite.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The parents did not lose their property because of judgment against them in a court of law so the due process reason is not applicable. They also did not receive anything in return so the just compensation reason is not valid. Since any other reason the government might use to claim ownership would be unconstitutional it follows that the ownership of the disputed property remains the parents for them to decide what to do with it.

It is such a clear cut case that the government has possession but not ownership of the property that I question the competency of the Colorado State Court of Appeals for overturning the case. I am also addressing the violation of the 4th Amendment perpetrated by the Sheriff as I will address below these applicable cites.

"It was shown without our permission by the sheriff, who we immediately put on notice to stop doing that and he did," Kay said.

Amendment IV
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. As you can see according to the 4th Amendment possession of property may be seized but there must be probable cause for it being seized. The cause for seizing the aforementioned property was obviously to use in an investigation and not to be shown to the media. The Sheriff therefore violated the reason for seizing it and therefore dishonored the fourth Amendment when he displayed the property to the media.

Hopefully the higher court overturn the Colorado Court of Appeals and rules in favor of the right to private property and against the right of the press to violate the forth Amendment. Also if the deciding judges on the Court of Appeals do not change their ways they need to be replaced by competent judges in order that the Rule of Law be maintained.