Comments on: Breaking SCOTUS: Safford Strip Search Ruled Unconstitutional Under Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Grounds

By: Leen

Leen — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:23:52 +0000

Important. Can you believe they turned down hearing the Plame outing case

By: tejanarusa

tejanarusa — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:04:13 +0000

Can always count on Christy to cover the Court’s significant rulings. Thanks goodness!

In all the hubbub over Michael Jackson’s death I’m not seeing anything on the front page about this decision.
Frankly, half a loaf or not, I’m glad this came down.

Of course, we knew instantly, on hearing it was 8-1 who the “1″ was.

To me, what it shows most of all is how important it is to get more women and “minorities” on the Court.

By: perris

perris — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:35:58 +0000

this court is turning our country into the kind of country we see in the movies, where the land owners can come by and rape your daughter, molest your son and claim some kind of eminant domain

that is what they want and that is how they ruled in this case

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:07:30 +0000

I think this ties in with the “reasonable expectation” language. I don’t know the history of this law, but I suspect that language means that they believe there is no Constitutional guarantee, but that people think they have privacy and if the right-wingers gradually whittle away at it with warnings, then one day they’ll be able to say there’s no remaining right (no remaining expectation) to privacy. Give them an inch and they’ll gradually get it all.

How far back does the “reasonable expectation” language go?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:03:06 +0000

wtf

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:01:09 +0000

How surprising.

By: perris

perris — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:59:10 +0000

the more I read about this ruling the more I think it is a complete loss.

they have empowered the search not restricted it as far as I can tell

By: Hugh

Hugh — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:38:17 +0000

I also just took a look at Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, a 5-4 decision with an unusual makeup in the vote. It involves a 6th Amendment violation of right to confront (and cross-examine) witnesses in a drug case where lab certificates were substituted for lab personnel testimony as to what and how much in the way of drugs had been seized.

By: cobernicus

cobernicus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:21:38 +0000

Another half a loaf. The majority said the search was unconstitutional but that the officials who ordered it should be immune from prosecution because it wasn’t “obviously” unconstitutional!!! Justice Ginsberg said it best in her dissent in part:

Here, “the nature of the [supposed] infraction,” the slim basis for suspecting Savana Redding, and her “age and sex,” ibid., establish beyond doubt that Assistant Principal Wilson’s order cannot be reconciled with this Court’s opinion in T. L. O. Wilson’s treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it. I join JUSTICE STEVENS in dissenting from the Court’s acceptance of Wilson’s qualified immunity plea, and would affirm the Court of Appeals’ judg-ment in all respects.

[Emphasis added.]

By: Hugh

Hugh — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:06:09 +0000

I have yet to look at this decision but concur with the ideas expressed about the scope of the search and the troubling take on immunity.

I would note in the passage cited the use, twice, of the word “privacy” which is good but in the context of “expectations of privacy”, instead of “right to privacy” which is not.