Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Right. Have you read the dissent in Doe v. Groody?

The reasoning there is just a wee bit tortured.

Not to mention the fact that it completely ignores specifically enumerated rights in the Constitution. Originalist indeed. I'm sure the Framers would have been just fine with the strip search of a ten year old. Except that is exactly the kind of overreaching and intimidation by authorities they feared when they wrote the bill of rights.

You're bothered by searching 10 year olds? Me too. Every head of every drug ring in every city realizes that. That's why kids are used so often. The palistinians also realize that and smuggle bomb vests all the time on little kids.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Right. Have you read the dissent in Doe v. Groody?

The reasoning there is just a wee bit tortured.

Not to mention the fact that it completely ignores specifically enumerated rights in the Constitution. Originalist indeed. I'm sure the Framers would have been just fine with the strip search of a ten year old. Except that is exactly the kind of overreaching and intimidation by authorities they feared when they wrote the bill of rights.

I'm sure the search up her ass was exactly the sort of thing that the framers envisioned when they wrote the fourth amendment.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
I'm sure the search up her ass was exactly the sort of thing that the framers envisioned when they wrote the fourth amendment.

Somehow, I don't think the Founders ever envisioned that this one would come up...ever:

-----
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Parents have no constitutional right to prevent public schools from exposing children to sexual topics, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision that found the rights of parents were not violated by a California public school district that allowed a psychological survey of its elementary school children.

Among the survey questions asked of the children were 10 with sexual references, such as "Can't stop thinking about sex" and "Not trusting people because they might want sex."

A group of parents whose children were surveyed sued the Palmdale School District, alleging their right to privacy and civil rights had been violated because control of their children's upbringing had been "robbed."

A three-judge panel held the parents have a right to inform their children as they wish about sex but do not have the right to prevent a public school from providing students with information it deems appropriate.

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the panel. "Such an obligation would not only contravene the educational mission of the public schools, but also would be impossible to satisfy."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You're bothered by searching 10 year olds? Me too. Every head of every drug ring in every city realizes that. That's why kids are used so often. The palistinians also realize that and smuggle bomb vests all the time on little kids.

Do you have any data on that? I'm sincerely curious if the "hide the drugs up my daughter's ass" scenario is urban legend or a widespread phenomena sweeping the nation.

A google search for "children drugs anus smuggle" isn't really generating results.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Somehow, I don't think the Founders ever envisioned that this one would come up...ever:

-----
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Parents have no constitutional right to prevent public schools from exposing children to sexual topics, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision that found the rights of parents were not violated by a California public school district that allowed a psychological survey of its elementary school children.

Among the survey questions asked of the children were 10 with sexual references, such as "Can't stop thinking about sex" and "Not trusting people because they might want sex."

A group of parents whose children were surveyed sued the Palmdale School District, alleging their right to privacy and civil rights had been violated because control of their children's upbringing had been "robbed."

A three-judge panel held the parents have a right to inform their children as they wish about sex but do not have the right to prevent a public school from providing students with information it deems appropriate.

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the panel. "Such an obligation would not only contravene the educational mission of the public schools, but also would be impossible to satisfy."

Parental rights spring from the penumbra of privacy rights that you object to so much. Certainly they're not in the constituion. I would think that you'd be on board with this decision.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Parental rights spring from the penumbra of privacy rights that you object to so much. Certainly they're not in the constituion. I would think that you'd be on board with this decision.

Ergo, my point.

The schools shouldn't be engaging in this behavior in the first place - and thus forcing parents to have to dig for some made-up constitutional barrier to prevent them.

The Founders would never have envisioned either side of this battle.

[SlaveNoMore]

Courtesy of Instapundit:

"If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn't a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?"

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Do you have any data on that? I'm sincerely curious if the "hide the drugs up my daughter's ass" scenario is urban legend or a widespread phenomena sweeping the nation.

Kids are commonly used as lookouts, runners, and to hold money and (less commonly) drugs for street dealers. Sometimes the are used to hold guns too.

I don't like the idea much, and haven't read the opinion, but if the police have probable cause to search a kid's ass they should do so. Ideally, hold the kid until a warrant is obtained but, if no warrant, I'd try to argue "inevitable discovery" (if the kid is in custody).

I'd impose that higher standard (beyond reasonable, articulable suspicion) because I think that cavity searches go a bit beyond the "minimally intrusive" stop and frisk permitted on the streets.

S_A_M

P.S. Y'all seem to think I'm a liberal, but I was also a reasonably creative and sucessful young prosecutor back when I was doing God's work and before I sold my soul.

ETA: Now, glancing at the opinion, I see that there was a warrant, but that it did not cover the persons of the mother and child. So, the cops had no right to search the ass. Unless (I'd say), they saw some insertion occurring.

Chertoff is hardly a liberal, and he wrote the opinion. Alito dissented. I disagree.

ETA2: However, Alito's analysis of the affidavit and the intent of the officers is right on, and his position is reasonable. I would come to a different conclusion, and agree with the majority.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Courtesy of Instapundit:

"If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn't a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?"

Funny.

If Libby pleads out, he'll avoid jail time too.

S_A_M

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

ETA: Now, glancing at the opinion, I see that there was a warrant, but that it did not cover the persons of the mother and child. So, the cops had no right to search the ass. Unless (I'd say), they saw some insertion occurring.

Exactly. And that's not an implied right, that's an enumerated right. But since it's in the fourth amendment, it doesn't really count, apparently, to the originalists.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Exactly. And that's not an implied right, that's an enumerated right. But since it's in the fourth amendment, it doesn't really count, apparently, to the originalists.

Alito's argument was _not_ that the right did not exist, but that the officers and magistrate (in his view) clearly intended the warrant to cover all persons present -- so the warrant should be so interpreted.

That is not a crazy position.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Alito's argument was _not_ that the right did not exist, but that the officers and magistrate (in his view) clearly intended the warrant to cover all persons present -- so the warrant should be so interpreted.

That is not a crazy position.

S_A_M

SAM change your avatar and your political stance. If this case is their best hope, the guy's a shoe-in. Did these guys even go to law school?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Somehow, I don't think the Founders ever envisioned that this one would come up...ever:

-----
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Parents have no constitutional right to prevent public schools from exposing children to sexual topics, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision that found the rights of parents were not violated by a California public school district that allowed a psychological survey of its elementary school children.

Among the survey questions asked of the children were 10 with sexual references, such as "Can't stop thinking about sex" and "Not trusting people because they might want sex."

A group of parents whose children were surveyed sued the Palmdale School District, alleging their right to privacy and civil rights had been violated because control of their children's upbringing had been "robbed."

A three-judge panel held the parents have a right to inform their children as they wish about sex but do not have the right to prevent a public school from providing students with information it deems appropriate.

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the panel. "Such an obligation would not only contravene the educational mission of the public schools, but also would be impossible to satisfy."

Did I ever note that I would never ever send my kids to public school?

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
SAM change your avatar and your political stance. If this case is their best hope, the guy's a shoe-in. Did these guys even go to law school?

I initially set the Over/Under at 64.

So far, I'm the only one on record with the "Over" - and with all the betting the other way, the line should have gone down.

This one is easy money.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Alito's argument was _not_ that the right did not exist, but that the officers and magistrate (in his view) clearly intended the warrant to cover all persons present -- so the warrant should be so interpreted.

That is not a crazy position.

S_A_M

I'm no 4th Amendment scholar. Crim Pro in law school pissed me off so much I vowed never to practice criminal law, due mostly to the supreme court's assessment of what people would considerable "reasonable" (i.e., the curtelage case, the helicopter flying over your backyard case).

So I'm going to pull a Ty and quote a [admittedly radically left wing, but see his analysis of Alito in Casey] blog written by a public defender, which I think really nails the problem:

The basic facts: police used a doubly-defective search warrant to strip-search a wholly innocent ten year-old child.

I say "doubly-defective" because the warrant in this case was both defective on its face (it violated the bedrock "four corners" rule of search warrants in that it failed to explicitly incorporate into its body a supporting affidavit seeking judicial permission to search the occupants of a home) and was also defective substantively (in that it sought to search persons, and not merely property, without the proper establishment of probable cause for such a search, and without any subsequent and independent justifying cause--like the safety of the officers--once the officers arrived on-scene).

The idea here is that police wanted to bust a drug dealer, so they asked a judicial branch employee to officially sanction a search warrant of the premises and of all persons on the premises (putting aside, for the moment, the fact that they didn't really ask for this permission, as they failed to incorporate a supporting affidavit into the search warrant and thus one cannot know, from looking at the warrant itself, whether permission was ever granted for the search of any persons on the premises other than the drug dealer himself).

The basis for asking to search persons on the property was that, if the drug dealer and others were present, the police feared the dealer might give the contraband--money and/or drugs--to other individuals in the building (specifically referenced was this scenario and this scenario only: "when faced with impending apprehension, [a dealer might give] evidence to other persons present on the premises"). The problem was, when the police got to the house, the dealer was nowhere to be found--certainly not "fearing apprehension"!--nor was anyone credibly to be viewed as a supplier or purchaser of drugs present in his home.

Who was there, you ask?

These people: the dealer's wife and his ten year-old daughter, neither of whom the police suspected of having any involvement whatsoever with the drug-dealing in question.

http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/200...ito-again.html

The aforementioned Casey analysis, which is favorable to Alito:
http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/200...k-scalito.html