TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Should've been unanimous

About The Tribune-Review
The Tribune-Review can be reached via e-mail or at 412-321-6460.
Contact Us | Video | Photo Reprints

Daily Photo Galleries


By The Tribune-Review

Published: Wednesday, April 3, 2013, 9:01 p.m.

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.

Robinson

 

 
 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Money for litter pickup?
  2. Term limits’ limits
  3. School staffers’ challenge
  4. Do it or shut up
  5. Kiski board ignores taxpayers
  6. The Obama Doctrine I wonder …
  7. Economics dissent
  8. Touching film
  9. Fayette County business as usual?
  10. Shortchanging military
  11. Not for sale
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.