SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter.com ^ | 7-30-05 | Ann Coulter

[lepton]

Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

You appear to be mentally mispunctuating. The standard for searching the trunk was looking for evidence of a crime (probable cause). The standard for constitutionality is not saying that he is looking for evidence of a crime. The ruling is that he did indeed have probable cause whether he said so aloud or not.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Wonderful gal and everything, but sheesh! she needs to start eating a few boxes of these a day:

[rollo tomasi]

Chief Justice the head of the Judiciary Branch of our government.

The Chief Justice is the chair of the Judicial Conference and the Federal Judicial Center and oversees the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts.

The Chief Justice has a position on the board of the National Gallery of Art, is the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution, and the Hirshorn Museum.

The Chief Justice also presides over impeachment trials of the President. Not exactly a figure head has a lot of other duties.

[colorado tanker]

Ann is just trying to create some controversy and more opportunities for TV appearances and columns.

Fact is Roberts is very well known in some high circles where Ann isn't a member. He worked in the Justice Department and White House and clerked for Rehnquist who wanted him appointed. Hugh Hewitt has known him personally since college and says he's a conservative in the Rehnquist mold.

[PhatHead]

I'd have to know a little more about the case before I can make a really solid judgment

Here's a little more about the case:

USA vs. Brown, Monte (PDF)

I would disagree with what you seem to be implying (that the legitimacy of a search is determined by whether evidence of a crime is actually found,) since by that standard, there is hardly a need to have a Fourth Amendment. But I may be reading too much into your comments.

This case, like most 4th Amendment cases, is not quite "cut and dried," and there may be room for disagreement, but I don't see anything particularly alarming about it (and I have become more of a 4th Amendment purist in recent years...)

[JLS]

You made some excellent points in your post.
__________________________________________________________

Thanks, as I have read through this thread, and I am about half way done now, I have seen many of my points and many other good points made.

[The_Eaglet]

I don't think her intent was to argue AGAINST Roberts. Anyone who takes that from this article is buying the line that questioning Bush's nomination of Roberts is attacking Roberts. I got from this article that she wanted to understand why Roberts was the nominee instead of a clearcut conservative.

I think that's a legit question. Especially since the GOP has nominated so many Kennedy-Souter-O'Connor-Warren types before.

I'll bump to that.

[hgro]

Ann is dancing without her fan!!

[iconoclast]

I despise identity politics, but the chances of getting two white males confirmed back to back is not good. I'd rather see Jones or Brown.

Our despisings are congruent. Luttig, IMO, is by far the best candidate available but has been passed over on the first opportunity and undoubtedly is a now a long shot for ever being nominated.

Both of your women are excellent candidates. I would think Brown would be the hardest for Dems to attack, but who knows with those loons.

[inquest]

Thanks, so it was a case of admissibility of evidence. My view isn't that "the legitimacy of a search is determined by whether evidence of a crime is actually found," but that the legitimacy of a conviction against someone isn't determined by whether the evidence against him was obtained legally, provided that the evidence itself is valid. The 4th amendment was designed to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

[PhatHead]

I agree with your clarification, but I would add that police officers who violate 4th Amendment protections (even of the guilty) should face more than a slap on the wrist, otherwise the amendment offers no protection in practice.

[daybreakcoming]

was also wrong in her predictions to her friends...

That could well be it and she was caught off balance like everyone else. I imagine ms Coulter, more than most, doesn't like being wrong. She prefers her fans to believe she is perfect. Why not? :o)

[inquest]

As I see it, they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else, unless they get a warrant (subject to the restrictions on warrants outlined in the 4th). That doesn't mean that they automatically get punished in the absence of a warrant, but that they're subject to the same legal process that any citizen would be who did the same thing. If it crosses the line into criminality, then county prosecutors should be able to go after state cops, and state prosecutors should be able to go after local cops. If necessary, accomodations should be made for qualified private attorneys to prosecute them.

[PhatHead]

As I see it, they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else

It's not possible for a private citizen to commit the same offense, though, unless you mean that illegal searches should be treated the same as burglaries? Again, i agree with your general point, as I understand it, that currently it is only the general public that is punished for illegal searches, when evidence of a crime cannot be used in court and a criminal walks free. I can't think of an analogous offense by a private citizen, and I don't know of any legal penalties currently on the books for cops.

But I guess we're wandering a bit off-topic for the thread at this point...

[inquest]

It's not possible for a private citizen to commit the same offense, though, unless you mean that illegal searches should be treated the same as burglaries?

If the illegal search is like a burglary. But if I happen to poke through the trunk of someone's car I doubt if I'd go to jail for it or anything. On the other hand, if I do have probable cause to believe that some illegal activity is going on inside a house, and there isn't time to call the police, a jury would most likely consider my actions reasonable under the circumstances if I were to enter.

[Sandy]

So basically whatever the officer wants to do when it comes to searching your car is ok and permissable, even if it's not Constitutional. This is an emotional, reactionary decision. He is saying, "I don't like drugs, so let's forget about the Constitution in the case of drugs."

The case had nothing to do with drugs. The vehicle was searched after the driver was arrested for driving without a license. Some fake IDs and stolen credit cards were found inside the passenger compartment, leading the officer to think that there might have been fraudulently purchased items in the trunk. The trunk was then searched, and various purchases were inside plus a handgun. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He won a motion to suppress and the government appealed. LINK

[PhatHead]

If the illegal search is like a burglary. But if I happen to poke through the trunk of someone's car I doubt if I'd go to jail for it or anything.

All illegal searches are burglaries if performed by private citizens, because we never have the the right to perform a legal search - and whether you went to jail would depend on what you took, prior record, etc. I don't think I'd like to see cops prosecuted by that standard, because it really isn't the same crime. I was thinking of something more along the lines of suspension without pay, busted in rank, etc., depending on the severity. Right now, in general, there is no penalty at all.

Anyway, good chatting with you. It sounds like we mostly agree - the devil is in the details, as always...

[solitas]

...doesn't she look a little like Leslie Nielsen (younger years) in drag?

Um, no.

[JLS]

In addition, by doing this they are conceding that the 'Rat definition of "mainstream" is the correct one. They're basically saying, "Hey look, our nominee isn't out of the mainstream....he's never once criticized Roe or supported voluntary prayer or denounced the Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage as a matter of principle."
_________________________________________________________

Exactly and I take this to be a big part of Ms. Coulters point. Now was the time to appoint an OPEN conservative and define the mainstream to include conservatives since we control all the elected branches of government.

[fortheDeclaration]

I've long since stopped referring to myself as a classic liberal. Nobody knows what that is. And the word liberal immediately raises questions in the minds of small government conservatives (although I'm beginning to believe small government conservatives don't really exist)

Yes, the term liberal has been corrupted from its original 19th century meaning, but we cannot undue it so we have to find a new term to describe the advocates of limited government.