This is a place for reasoned and intelligent discussion of conservative principles and current events.

A Supreme Court Ruling

A ‘Warrantless’ Search Is Not the Same as an ‘Unreasonable’ Search
A recent Supreme Court ruling clarifies an important distinction in Fourth Amendment cases.

PJ Media: March 6, 2014

If you were to learn that the Supreme Court had handed down a decision, and all you were told about it was that the opinion had been written by Justice Alito, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer joining, and that Justice Ginsburg had filed a dissenting opinion, in which she was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, do you think you’d be inclined to approve or disapprove of the outcome? And if you were to further learn that the decision had so rankled the editors at the most liberal newspaper west of the Hudson River, the Los Angeles Times, that they took to their pages to condemn it, would your inclination be altered?

Last November I wrote here on the case of Fernandez v. California, in which oral arguments had just been heard before the Supreme Court. I’m pleased to report that last week the Court, no doubt influenced by my column, ruled against Fernandez, an especially loathsome individual, upholding his conviction and the warrantless search of his apartment based on the consent of his live-in girlfriend. This is not to say the vitality of one’s constitutional rights should be in inverse proportion to one’s loathsomeness, but it’s gratifying that this petitioner, a street thug and an abuser of women, came away from the Court unsatisfied.

Read more.

Similar posts
  • On Islam – Carson Pitches, Kra... Charles Krauthammer has been inside the beltway too long. On most topics he is right on. His criticism of Ben Carson’s comments on a Muslim president, however, are just plain boneheaded wrong. The media have converted a comment into an artificial issue otherwise known as a straw dog. And since there is neither a Muslim [...]
  • Civil Asset Forfeiture – Anothe... Due process is a concept left out of the civil asset forfeiture game. A well intended law to curb drug trafficking has been transformed through the process of unintended consequences into a profit center for funding public agencies and law enforcement. Through civil asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement only needs suspicion of a crime to [...]
  • Civil Asset Forfeiture – Legal ... The unconstitutional theft of cash and property by government agencies and law enforcement continues. The thefts of assets without evidence of criminality, charges, conviction, or intent continue to take place to supplement strained budgets. A law intended to prevent drug cartels from using their ill gotten gains and money laundering has gone terribly sour. The [...]
  • What Does Trump Really Believe? We all like the energy and attention that The Donald has brought to the Presidential Primary. We all want to see America made great again. We would all like to see a Republican in the White house and we all (Republicans in particular) think it essential. The question we face: Which candidate do we choose? [...]
  • Acceptance is not Enough Very few people are born with either homosexual or abnormal sexual tendencies (less that 5%). It is a very small percentage of the population. Look it up. Although it is very small, it is very loud and in your face. We live in a society with traditional values under attack. They are under attack by [...]

1 Comment

  1. Jim Lee Jim Lee
    March 7, 2014    

    I believe this is a proper ruling by the court. This was NOT an unreasonable search in my opinion and apparently SCOTUS either.

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.