In an amazing, one
might even say astounding decision Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority
opinion which affirmed that a person has the right to be secure in their
home and free from an unwarranted search by authorities. The question was relatively straight
forward. Can the police, with no
justifiable or legitimate reason walk on to a person’s property with a drug
sniffing dog.
Police
took a drug-sniffing dog to Jardines’ front porch, where the dog gave a
positive alert for narcotics. Based on the alert, the officers obtained a
warrant for a search, which revealed marijuana plants; Jardines was charged
with trafficking in cannabis. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the trial court’s decision
to suppress the evidence, holding that the officers had engaged in a Fourth Amendment search unsupported by
probable cause.
Now there was no way Justice Scalia, the champion of
police powers and a judge for whom government can do no wrong against defendants was going to
uphold the Supreme Court of Florida and rule that the police (and the dog) had
no right to be on Jardines’s property.
BUT HE DID.
But when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals. At the
Amendment’s “very core” stands “the right of a man to retreat into his own home
and there be free from unreasonable governmental in- trusion.” Silverman v. United States ,365 U. S.
505, 511 (1961) . This right would be of little
practical value if the State’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side
garden and trawl for evidence with impunity; the right to retreat would be
significantly diminished if the police could enter a man’s property to observe
his repose from just outside the front window.
And yes, the outcome of the case, where a drug dealer
was probably allowed to go free is deplorable.
But the outcome is not relevant to the law, the law is relevant to the
law. And had the policy simply waited
for the accused to leave his house, and had they followed him and determined
that he was dealing drugs they could have arrested him and got their
conviction.
So Justice Scalia came down on the side of the law,
and not the outcome. Police officials in Florida were visibly upset, but the dog later said the decision was the right thing to do, and that he was sorry to have been a part of an Unconstitutional search. Elsewhere Porky Pig
and a few of his friends were seen flying over the Supreme Court Building in Washington .
Believe it or not, Scalia often comes down on the side of the criminal defendant in Fourth Amendment cases. He is also strongly pro-defendant in Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause cases (dealing with a defendant's right to cross-examine persons who make incriminating statements against him).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Scalia does not believe that anything violates the Eighth Amendment's bar on cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, he is ok with just about anyone being sentenced to death.
I can also see them flying over the local courts here in Baton Rouge too!!
ReplyDelete