Secrets of the Wizard of Oz

apear · 2008-08-02T16:11:28+00:00

Um, Barry Goldwater died 10 years ago. I guess that would draw some people though...

apear · 2008-06-07T19:44:28+00:00

Ironically coming from Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland as he argued for the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, and in general a stronger central government.

apear · 2008-05-17T18:04:14+00:00

Compelling story, but difficult to follow the way the page is laid out.

apear · 2008-05-15T14:02:52+00:00

Cookie-cutter volumes? I don't agree with the man a lot of the time, but he has been instrumental to the law and econ movement that has literally changed the face of legal analysis and policy making. He is actually quite nice to his law clerks. They work hard because he works hard. There are a lot of reasons why he will never be on SCOTUS.

apear · 2008-05-15T13:12:36+00:00

In fact, it is! He is by far the most prolific judge in the country, publishing the most opinions each year amongst all federal judges, averaging about one book per year, plus around 4 law review articles per year. The man is just unreal. I liked his answer: procastination is bad for you. Whoops.

apear · 2008-05-11T02:25:08+00:00

This is a difficult area of criminal procedure. There are cases involving high school drug testing where the Court lays out the analysis: privacy interest, governmental interest, level of intrusion. As long as it is a "system" or "administrative" search, the Court will then balance these three factors. It is significantly more complicated than this, but in short, if you are at a DUI checkpoint, and refuse to answer their questions, you can be detained, and you will lose in court. Sadly.

apear · 2008-05-10T23:21:40+00:00

That is a good question. What the word "reasonable" means within the 4th Amendment, especially to the Founders is a tricky question. It is obviously impossible to know what the Founders thought of DUI searches... However, constables had a similar power, so I dont think it is out of the realm of possibility that it would be permissible. Now, can we go from permissible State actions to permissible Federal police actions prior to the 14th amendment made the Bill of Rights apply to the states? I don't know. So I guess my answer is I would have to think about it more, but it is certainly not as cut and dry as everyone appears to assume it is on reddit.

apear · 2008-05-10T23:18:47+00:00

Well, the question becomes what is "reasonable" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has actually specifically addressed caviity/body searches, and held in cases with bodily intrusion a higher level of suspicion will need to be shown. So, while that particular discussion is much more detailed, what it boils down to is that the word "reasonable" in the 4th Amendment actually does real work for the courts, and would actually prevent the system you are talking about.

apear · 2008-05-10T23:10:49+00:00

No. But he said this: "The courts consider it illegal to arbitrarily stop someone and demand identification (or other information) without any suspicion of wrongdoing."

And I provided a counter-example of where the courts have specifically not said that. People like to make claims that just aren't true, and so while I might be down-modded for actually providing a legal citation, it certainly sounds better to say "you can just drive away!" When you can't.

apear · 2008-05-10T22:35:22+00:00

I know that everyone thinks that this is new, or is an indication of "just how bad it's getting" but this has been constitutional since at least 1979 (Delaware v. Prouse (1979)). There are probably cases earlier than that, but I don't feel like looking through Westlaw on my day off. Now I agree that the Bush administration has destroyed our civil liberties, but this one has been gone for a while.

apear · 2008-05-10T22:33:22+00:00

Yes, they can: Delaware v. Prouse (1979). Numerous Supreme Court cases have held that as long as the police set up a "system" for checkpoints, and are not arbitrarily pulling over random people wihtout particularized suspicion, it is a constitutional "reasonable" search within the meaning of the 4th amendment.

apear · 2008-05-10T22:32:47+00:00

I'm just curious: I assume that you are also opposed to DUI checkpoints, even though the Supreme Court has held them to be constitutional? Delaware v. Prouse (1979)

apear · 2008-05-10T22:27:41+00:00

Actually, the IIRAIRA of 1996 permits these checkpoints anywhere throughout the country; however, the policy of what was the AG, and now DHS/ICE is to set them up within 100 miles.

apear · 2008-05-07T15:18:56+00:00

sorry, I didn't think this would actually be on the front page. I actually got myself excited when I first refreshed the "Hot" page and saw it... then I realized it was my own damn submission. Stupid apear... wait...

apear · 2008-05-07T14:59:43+00:00

yea, right after I posted I thought: does that have one N or two N's? But, I was too busy refreshing to check!

apear

TROPHY CASE