June 8, 2013
Re "Court goes too far on DNA," Editorial, June 4 The U.S. Supreme Court got it absolutely right in finding that it is constitutional for DNA to be collected at the time of arrest and checked against a national database of unsolved cases. The Times' claim that doing so violates an arrestee's 4th Amendment rights is off base. The 4th Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches, and case law through the years has found it reasonable for law enforcement to collect a number of identifying traits at the time of arrest.
August 23, 2012
Re "A 21st century test: What's a 'search'?," Editorial, Aug. 20 Six months after Congress passed a law requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to ease restrictions on commercial drone use in U.S. airspace and two weeks after The Times published an article noting that the Department of Homeland Security is trying to accelerate the use of unmanned aircraft, an editorial points out the 4th Amendment dangers of cellphones and GPS technology....
March 27, 2013 |
In his opinions on abortion and gay rights, Justice Antonin Scalia has taken an offensively narrow view of the Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws. But when it comes to the 4th Amendment's more specific protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Scalia has been a strong voice for individual rights. That was the case again Tuesday. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Scalia came down hard on police in Florida who, without having obtained a warrant, deployed a drug-sniffing dog at a homeowner's front door.
December 15, 2009 |
The Supreme Court said Monday it would rule for the first time on whether employees had a right to privacy when they sent text messages on electronic devices supplied by their employers. The justices agreed to hear an appeal from the city of Ontario, which was successfully sued by police Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers after their text messages -- some of which were sexually explicit -- were read by the police chief. At issue is whether the chief violated their rights under the 4th Amendment, which forbids "unreasonable searches" by the government.
December 15, 2006
Re "Eyes on the ears," editorial, Dec. 12 Privacy is something given to us by the 4th Amendment. Yet the president himself confirmed that the National Security Agency has monitored many Americans without court order. So why is our government, whose job it is to uphold our Bill of Rights, violating this right? There needs to be stronger monitoring of NSA operations. The FBI, White House and all others involved admit to eavesdropping without court order, yet they cannot give us any type of report on how it is aiding their anti-terrorist efforts.
March 15, 2013 |
Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a tea party darling, evidently is so proud of his exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) during the Senate Judiciary Committee's session Thursday, he posted a video of it on YouTube. At issue was the constitutionality of S 150 , Feinstein's proposal to ban semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. As political theatrics go, it's pretty good: Cruz did that old courtroom-lawyer trick of asking a loaded question based on a false analogy and then challenging Feinstein to answer it. And he achieved the intended result: She came across as flustered and evasive, when she needed to point out how wrong Cruz's premise was. In fact, Cruz's query helps illustrate why Feinstein's approach is consistent with the Bill of Rights.
February 16, 2014
Re "Obama's undiplomatic picks," Editorial, Feb. 13 It has been a crushing disappointment to this reader, who voted twice for Barack Obama, to follow instance after instance of our president's lack of insight, foresight or hindsight. But it isn't only his poor ambassador picks that trouble me. It started with the outrageous selection of two men - Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, who were instrumental in bringing about the changes that led to the financial meltdown - to manage our monetary policies.
January 25, 2012
By a surprisingly unanimous vote, the Supreme Court this week ruled that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a tracking device to a car or other vehicle. The decision is a welcome affirmation of the constitutional right to privacy in an era of advanced technology. But the majority opinion's rationale was needlessly narrow. Whether there is a broad right to freedom from new kinds of intrusive electronic surveillance remains to be answered. The case involved the conviction of Antoine Jones, a suspected drug dealer in the District of Columbia who was arrested after being monitored for 28 days by a global positioning system device surreptitiously attached to his Jeep by law enforcement agents without a warrant.
October 30, 2004
Re "Chief Justice Has Thyroid Cancer," Oct. 26: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist gave us a gift. It sounds as though he will recover speedily and well, but his sudden illness brought to the forefront the pressing issue of judicial appointments that may occur during the next presidency -- appointments that could change the rights of Americans long into the future. There are seemingly many Americans, and reportedly most of them are women, who are still undecided as to how they will vote in this election.