Monday, Jun 18, 2018
One of America's Great Newspapers ~ Toledo, Ohio


Unreasonable searches

One price of liberty is that some constitutional guarantees make the defense of freedom more difficult

Where is the line be­tween gov­ern­ment’s need to pur­sue evil­do­ers and the pri­vacy rights of Amer­i­cans, in­clud­ing safe­guards against un­rea­son­able searches? That line al­ways should be drawn in fa­vor of pro­tect­ing cit­i­zens against an over­en­thu­si­as­tic gov­ern­ment.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard ar­gu­ments in three cases that test the lim­its of per­sonal free­dom. One case deals with war­rant­less sur­veil­lance of Amer­i­can cit­i­zens. The other two asked whether there should be a per­for­mance stan­dard for drug-sniff­ing dogs, and whether a po­lice pooch nos­ing around on your porch con­sti­tutes an il­le­gal search.

Read more Blade editorials

The 1978 For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Act al­lows the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to mon­i­tor in­ter­na­tional tele­phone calls and other elec­tronic com­mu­ni­ca­tions by for­eign na­tion­als to and from peo­ple in the United States. In 2008, the re­quire­ment that the gov­ern­ment get a war­rant first was re­moved. Now, fed­eral agents can mon­i­tor nearly any­one they want for al­most any rea­son — or no rea­son at all.

Sev­eral groups sued, in­clud­ing hu­man rights or­ga­ni­za­tions, law­yers for de­tain­ees cap­tured in the war on ter­ror, and jour­nal­ists. They claim that lis­ten­ing to their phone con­ver­sa­tions and read­ing their emails with­out a war­rant vi­o­lates con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tions against un­rea­son­able search.

But be­fore the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of war­rant­less wire­taps can be de­ter­mined, the justices must de­cide whether there is a case to hear. Fed­eral law­yers say the plain­tiffs can’t sue, be­cause the sur­veil­lance is se­cret, so they can’t prove their com­mu­ni­ca­tions were in­ter­cepted.

That ar­gu­ment is par­tic­u­larly cyn­i­cal and should be re­jected. As Justice An­to­nin Sca­lia noted, the court has ex­am­ined cases in the past in which no one had stand­ing.

They should do so again in this case. War­rant­less sur­veil­lance of emails and phone calls fails the same con­sti­tu­tional tests as po­lice at­tach­ing a global po­si­tion­ing sys­tem to an au­to­mo­bile.

The drug-dog cases orig­i­nated in Flor­ida. One case chal­lenges the be­lief, shared by justices, that dogs trained to sniff out drugs al­most never are wrong. In 1983, the Supreme Court said that a war­rant wasn’t needed to sniff suit­cases. In 2005, they ex­tended war­rant­less searches to au­to­mo­biles.

But drug dogs are not in­fal­li­ble. In fact, stud­ies have found that they are right less than half the time. Worse, their false hits ap­pear to be in­flu­enced by sub­tle cues from their han­dlers.

The other Flor­ida case asks: Is a drug dog sniff­ing out­side the door of a home con­duct­ing an il­le­gal search? If the an­swer is no, po­lice will be able to use drug dogs to sweep ran­domly for drugs in apart­ment com­plexes, pub­lic hous­ing, and other places — no prob­a­ble cause needed. So the an­swer must be yes.

The high court has said heat-de­tect­ing de­vices can’t be used to iden­tify houses in which mar­i­juana might be grow­ing. A drug dog sniff­ing a door jamb with­out a war­rant ap­pears at least as in­tru­sive.

Law en­force­ment of­fi­cials some­times find that the free­doms they are sworn to up­hold are in­con­ve­nient to their search for law­break­ers, ter­ror­ists, and oth­ers who would do Amer­ica harm. When that hap­pens, they have to be re­minded that with­out those con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tions, there is noth­ing to de­fend.

Click to comment

Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem?

Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet.

Copyright © 2018 Toledo Blade

To Top

Fetching stories…