4th Amendment update

[Nathan Newman]

Don't even try to find consistency in 4th Amendment rulings-- the law is
such a mess it makes your eyes glaze over.  I know.  I happen to be spending
the day today studying criminal law in prep for the Bar Exam and trying to
study the 4th Amendment "rules" without breaking down in helpless insane
giggles is almost impossible.

But let's pretend- the best way to explain this decision is on two points.
One, it involved search of the personal home itself- which gains far more
protection than cars, luggage or even one's person away from home.
Secondly, it involved use of advanced technology UNKNOWN TO THE FOUNDING
FATHERS, which is the best way to explain Scalia and Thomas's position,
since while drug sniffing dogs could be contemplated in the past, new
technology should not be used to decrease privacy in ways the founders could
not contemplate.

But don't hold them to it- you can find counter positions.  Also hard to
explain why Stevens bolted to the authoritarian side on this one.

-- Nathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: 4th Amendment update

What about dawgs?  Looks like that
should be illegal too, unless you have
some justification for frisking someone.
In any case, score one for Tony Scalia.

mbs

[mmmmmmmmm, so they can't use thermodynamics without a warrant to bust
you for weed, coke etc.  but they can use analytical chemistry...what
titans of consistency.]