Remember me? I used to be an amendment to the US Constitution
That's right... it's your old buddy #4... aw, c'mon... help an old friend out? Hey... you can't just walk away like that... I used to BE somebody, you ungrateful schmendrick! Remember Miranda? Remember no-knock rules? Remember when you usedta be able to drive from San Diego to Puerta Vallarta without getting your rectum probed? You got a lot to thank me for! I used to BE somebody, dammit! Don't you walk...
Hey... come back.
Please?
[wik] In response to Buckethead's reasonable observation that this decision isn't too much out of left field, I had actually meant to tie this post to this one that weakened search-and-seizure protections in Louisiana. Two isolated decisions don't make a convincing case that the IV Amendment is in imminent danger, but this is a weblog, I'm a little hysterical, so I'm calling it like I sees it.
on
| § 1
§ One Comment
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I am certainly leery of any
I am certainly leery of any encroachments on the fourth (or most other amendments, for that matter - especially 9 and 10, my personal favorites) but Rehnquist's reasoning is not completely out of left field here. If there's one place that the government should be able to inspect people, it's at the border. As long as the ruling is limited to that case, I can live with it - and it seems from the article and my limited legal acumen that it would be. Maybe one of the Volokhs will chime in on this.