The Supreme Court made an interesting ruling yesterday involving a woman who called police to the scene of a domestic dispute and told them where her husband's cocaine was stashed:
The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both partners present agree to let them in.
The 5 to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.
Roberts and Souter squared off in their opinions, which are summarized in the aritcle.
Although I'm generally in favor of limiting police power, both sides make good arguments. It's a tough call, but it seems better to err on the side of caution in cases of domestic violence and abuse. The majority opinion says this discriminates against women and denies their equal rights. Somehow, I don't think it will usually be women objecting to entry in these cases.
What do you think?
- Frank Cagle nails the Voucher Issue (35 replies)
- Betty Bean: Emerald Recruitment Ltr Angers Christenberry Faculty (20 replies)
- Shadowy groups seek to keep virtual schools alive in Tennessee (10 replies)
- Next Stop (35 replies)
- Belated condolences to Jamie Satterfield (4 replies)
- Compare and Contrast Challenge - Voucher Program (7 replies)
- Tennessee ranks in the bottom 10 of worst places to do business (10 replies)
- Knox Co. Democratic Party convention March 28th (3 replies)
- KCS finance director leaving to join Emerald Youth Foundation (4 replies)
- Free market senior services? (5 replies)
- It's getting close to tax time (8 replies)
- (Another) Bargain Hunter's Review: United Grocery Outlet (6 replies)