TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review


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

Should've been unanimous

Daily Photo Galleries

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

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 
 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Not federal matter
  2. Clean up the NFL
  3. Appeasement then & now
  4. Wrong conclusion, Mr. Will
  5. Miller rightly remembered
  6. Quit naming terrorists
  7. Growth’s real driver
  8. Divulging too much
  9. Emmert, Freeh share shame
  10. ‘Deflate-gate’ vs. King Day
  11. Lifting sanctions appropriate