God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen - Jars of Clay - listen now

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

ALITO AND DOE v. GROODY

The Democrats must be desperate. They're rejecting common sense in order to oppose Alito as an "extremist." From FoxNews:
In Doe v. Groody, Alito defended a police search done near Pottsville, Pa. Police had a warrant to search the home of a suspected narcotics dealer. As part of the search, a female officer ordered the man's wife and 10-year-old daughter to partially disrobe. No drugs were found on the female pair, but the man was arrested and pleaded guilty to drug charges.

The family sued the officers, arguing the warrant did not allow the search of the mother and daughter.
Democrat moon-bats are saying that searching the little girl was "extreme" and exceeded the officers 4th Amendment authority. I say b#llsh#t; there is nothing extreme about searching the occupants of the house of a suspected drug dealer. They had a warrant to search the premises; common sense says that people in the house are also subject to search. No reasonable person would doubt that a drug dealer might force his child to hide contraband. No contraband was found on the wife or daughter, but the suspect did plead guilty to drug charges.

3 comments:

John Whiteside 11/29/2005 05:33:00 PM  

The "Democrat moon-bats" include, it seems, Michael Chertoff, now head of the FEMA but then a judge, who wrote the opinion that Alito had a problem with. You are trying to find a partisan issue where there isn't one. The ruling is somewhat controversial, and plenty of conservatives are uncomfortable with it.

Face it: this is an issue that laywers and judges of all political persuasions have discussed without coming to any real consensus.

It's always interesting to me when people who call themselves "conservative" are eager to give the government power to intrude into private homes. Yes, the guy they were after pled guilty. The search of the other occupants of the house played no role in that, however.

This isn't exactly a sympathetic defendant, but think about it: how much power do you want to give the government to enter your home and search your family members?

Kevin 11/29/2005 06:17:00 PM  

The Democrats are making it a partisan issue by using this opinion to call Alito "extreme."

The search was conducted under the 4th Amendment. They didn't just go "eenie, meenie, mynee, mo" and pick that house. They had a proper search warrant. The question was whether or not the warrant covered the mother and daughter.

Supreme Court precedent says search warrants should be construed in a reasonable and common sense fashion, not in an overly technical or legalistic one. In that light it was reasonable to search the suspects wife and daughter who were in his house.

Oh, and I want the government to have the proper, constitutional powers to conduct searches when warranted. In my opinion, the case in question did not overstep any constitutional boundries.

ThatGayConservative 11/30/2005 01:45:00 AM  

Officers can search other people not named in a warrant as long as they have probable cause. Even if they only have reasonable suspicion, other people can be searched.

Here's the text of the warrant and the referrenced affidavit.

Recent Comments

Contact Me

eMail:
cyberkevinblogs@gmail.com

MSN:
cyberkevinblogs

Google Chat:
cyberkevin1

Label Cloud

Followers

. . .

. . .

. . .


stats

Blog Archive

Disclaimer

All opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author. The author’s opinions do not represent those of his employers. All original material is copyrighted and property of the author. If you use it at least have the decency to give me credit for it. Don’t steal it or I reserve the right to sue you to heck and back, or worse. Other info may have been copyrighted by someone else; the author believes that such work as is quoted here does not exceed reasonable “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the United States Copyright Law as I understand it. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Opinions in comments or trackbacks are not mine, so if you have a problem with those, sorry, I can’t help you. Comments on this blog become the sole property of the blog, and may be reused or quoted on the blog or in any other media. Anyone mentioned in relation to a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Contact: writetokevinp@gmail.com. All e-mails are presumed to be for publication on the site unless I am specifically and politely told otherwise - if you’re rude I’ll publish them just to hack you off. All comments are subject to deletion or revision should the author find them offensive or just simply not like you. Trolling will not be tolerated.

  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP