|
Will, actually the fourth amendment is unbelievably complex, which is why when I read the summary of the case I had no idea whether the decision is defensible or not. I'd need to read the opinion and even then, since I know very little about fourth amendment jurisprudence (haven't really looked at it much, other than current events, since law school), I'm not sure I'd have a view on it.
The other thing is, this case has a federalism overlap, i.e. the interplay of state law and federal constitutional protection. It's just not clear to me that the former dictates the scope of the latter on the facts of this case. I can see the argument that it should but also the argument that it shouldn't.
Law isn't about results, it's about principles. Sometimes having the rule of law means that the results in a particular case may seem unjust. But that's what we have a Supreme Court for, to give us the principles.
|