Defending the Truth

http://tinyurl.com/ejs3y


Common sense rules again. Thank you Sandra Day O'Connor for stepping down and I hope you have a nice retirement.

I think it's a good decision. What makes you think Sandra Day O'Connor would have ruled against it?

This is from the above new article:

"O'Connor had heard arguments
The outcome might have been different if O’Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O’Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: “Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?”

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush’s other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia’s opinion".

Hm... Point taken.

O'Connor was an admirable woman. I appreciate the libertarian streak in her court decisions.

Great. Everyone's happy.

I agree with the court ruling, but feel it necessary to add on one caveat.

If they try this crap at my house and knock down the door before I have a chance to open it, they better be prepared to pay for a brand-new door...

I disagree with the majority in this case. The ommission of evidence that was collected in violation of the knock and announce rule is the strongest check to keep the government from violating the 4th amendment. The majority broke long standing precident with no real justification.

Another step in the direction of the police state.

I wish this article actually talked about some of the details in the case. The article does not talk about it in any sort of context nor does it bring up the Constitutional reasoning for the majority opinion presumably to find the knock-and-announce rule an unfair 4th Amendment protection. The closed scope of the article shines through when it says "Dissenters cite Constitution"...hey idiot, so did the majority and so did the concurring opinions, in fact, and integral part of Supreme Court decisions is citing and interpreting the Constitution. What idiots write these AP articles anyways?