Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Become a Fan

    « Fitch Downgrades Capistrano's Bond Rating | Main | Allevato Reports on Council Meeting -- Who Made Wall of Recognition? »

    May 16, 2011


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    Gia Lugo

    Holy moly!!!! Good-bye 4th Amendment. It's really easy for the police to say they had "probably cause", which is extremely subjective. Not happy with this ruling!

    Steve Behmerwohld

    Some people will use the old adage, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about". The potential for abuse is huge. I can't believe that there hasn't been a broader negative reaction to this ruling.

    Jim Reardon

    This is a bit alarming. The problem is not so much in the concept as it is in the implementation: Check out this story from Pima County, AZ, in which the Sheriff's Department used the exact technique approved by the court to serve a search warrant -- on a location (not a person):

    These results were disastrous.

    Regardless of your political views, we can all agree that something went seriously wrong here. The court should be more cautious. Judge Alito seems to believe that the police can see through walls and are able to determine when "noise" "suggests" that "evidence" is being destroyed. Perhaps Judge Alito would offer an opinion on who is to blame when the police guess wrong?

    This ruling creates a threshold for police action which is unacceptable and may even lead to more injury of officers during the inevitable confrontations that will occur when a door is broken down.

    Protection one security

    Try to break my steel door. It's burglar-proof, so I assume it's police-proof too!)

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Our Blogs