I am so glad that the dangerous drug dealer selling weed will be spending twenty years behind bars. Thanks for making the world a safer place guys. It was definitely worth the warrantless monitoring of citizenry.
By Island Attorney on 2013 01 13, 5:22 pm CST
Oh, no, Island Attorney. Skinner should go to prison for twenty years because he was involved in the distribution of….a naturally-growing plant that has medicinal qualities. All right, never mind that. But he was also involved in the violent and dangerous practice of money laundering. Okay, well, it’s not really violent…or dangerous…but it involves accounting and bookkeeping, and in some cases paying taxes on the money, so, uh…..I’m sorry, what was my point?
By emjaycee on 2013 01 26, 5:52 am CST
On a separate issue, I’m intrigued by the beautiful circularity of Judge Rogers’ reasoning:
“When criminals use modern technological devices to carry out criminal acts and to reduce the possibility of detection, they can hardly complain when police take advantage of the inherent characteristics of those very devices to catch them.”
Isn’t that kind of putting the cart before the horse? It’s okay to violate the Fourth Amendment if the person whose rights were violated later turns out to have been a criminal? That’s kind of bootstrapping, isn’t it? By that reasoning, it would be perfectly all right for the police to go on a fishing expedition and tap everyone’s landline telephones without a warrant and without any probable cause. Then after the police discover someone using their phone to make drug deals, they can successfully defend a motion to suppress by saying he was using his phone “to carry out criminal acts” so he had no expectation of privacy.
By emjaycee on 2013 01 26, 5:54 am CST
Comment removed by moderator.
By Steve on 2013 02 01, 4:33 am CST
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
© 2013 ABA Journal and the American Bar Association | ABA Home
Questions, comments, or concerns? Contact us
Visit our desktop site