Alito Defense
Is Alito a good choice? I doubt I'd ever pick him. But I've read two of his dissents today, and they did not seem out of line at all.
In fact, here Think Progress seems out of line. They describe
Doe v Groody(pdf)
here as follows...
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
The question in the case has nothing, whatsoever, to do with strip searches. It turns entirely on the relationship between an affadavit, sworn by cops and signed by a Judge, attached by a staple to a warrant. Both documents clearly state what is to be searched. The warrant says John Doe's person only. The affadavit says "The search should include all persons in the house."
The majority makes its case as follows
The face of the search warrant here,
however, does not grant authority to
search either Jane or Mary Doe. The
block designated for a description of the
person or place to be searched specifically
names John Doe, and identifies and
describes his residence. Nothing in that
portion of the printed warrant refers to any
other individual, named or unnamed, to be
searched. Seeking to remedy this
omission, the officers argue that the
warrant should be read in light of the
accompanying affidavit which requested
permission to search “all occupants” of the
residence. They conclude that the warrant
should be read in “common sense”
fashion, as supplemented by the affidavit.
If that contention is correct, then police
had legal authority to search anybody that
they encountered inside the house when
they came to execute the warrant.
To be sure, a warrant must be read
in a common sense, non-technical fashion.
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102,
109 (1965). But it may not be read in a
way that violates its fundamental
purposes. As the text of the Fourth
Amendment itself denotes, a particular
description is the touchstone of a warrant.
U.S. Const. amend. IV. The requirement
of a particular description in writing
accomplishes three things. First, it
memorializes precisely what search or
seizure the issuing magistrate intended to
permit. Second, it confines the discretion
of the officers who are executing the
warrant. Marron v. United States, 275
U.S. 192, 196 (1927). Third, it “inform[s]
the subject of the search what can be
seized.” Bartholomew, 221 F.3d at 429.
For these reasons, although a warrant
should be interpreted practically, it must
be sufficiently definite and clear so that
the magistrate, police, and search subjects
can objectively ascertain its scope. See
Groh, 540 U.S. at __, slip op. at 5.
[...]
In this case, there is no language in
the warrant that suggests that the premises
or people to be searched include Jane Doe,
Mary Doe, “all occupants” or anybody
else, save John Doe himself. Other
portions of the face sheet which describe
the date of the violation and the
supportin g probable cause do refer to the
attached typed affidavit. But this fact is
actually unhelpful to the officers, since it
demonstrates that where the face sheet was
intended to incorporate the affidavit, it
said so explicitly. As a matter of common
sense, as well as logic, the absence of a
reference to the affidavit must therefore be
viewed as negating any incorporation of
that affidavit.
That's Doe V Groody. Nothing really to do with strip searches whatsoever, but between the relationship with the warrant and the attached affadavit.
No comments:
Post a Comment