Should've been unanimous
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled to limit the ability of police to use a dog to sniff around the outside of a home for illegal drugs that might be inside.
By a 5-4 vote, the court said a government's use of trained police dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Why was this a 5-4 vote? Do four justices not know the Fourth Amendment?
“A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. “But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else,” he added. “There is no customary invitation to do that.”
The vote should have been 9-0. Those four dissenters eroded your personal liberty a bit more.
“Supreme”? At best, we should call it what it is: the court of last appeals. Leave “Supreme” to the deity.
Wait until the drones “roam on the range.”
M.S. Janosov Jr.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Not ‘too stupid’
- On right track
- Quarantine quandary
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- Ford City police
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Know when to yield
- Something special
- ‘Change’ promise kept