Erosion of the Bill of Rights continues...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search.ap/index.html

Typical. Scalia says an opposite ruling would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to Hudson. In his mind, we're all guilty until proven innocent.

 

I think probable cause covers this one. When you have credible reason to believe the evidence is in the home in question, the method of obtaining it should be secondary, particularly in cases where the potential for violent reaction exists, as in Ragu's meth lab example. I just don't see how anyone's rights are violated or eroded by this ruling.

 

And I can think of circumstances in which the cops should just be allowed to stop everyone on the street and search them, but they wouldn't be constitutional, either.
Thanks to all those Democrats who helped put Roberts and Strip-Search Sammy Alito on the court, guaranteeing the current political blight sticks around for 40 years.
Bad decision and, as zeke points out, scary logic.

 

Well... the NSA going in front of a judge has been eroded.

This is a step toward that for the cops.

 

I think that, even if you are suspected of a crime, cops shouldn't be able to quietly come in on you banging your wife.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Less right to privacy.

Understand?

 

You should have a problem with this. The purpose and thought behind a warrant is that it is to be provided to you before any search is attempted. It's a privacy issue. The cops want to breech that wall? Fine. Where's your warrant? Save that, your individual rights have been violated. If someone gets away with something because of a knock at the door, well... tough shit. The law should protect the rights of all, not make sure every guilty party is caught. You err on the side of rights. Or you should.

Looking at it from another side -- someone comes bum-rushing into a house unannounced, and eventually someone's going to get shot. How do you charge the guy, then?