soldier with rifle american civil warState Of The Union

Justice Alito is a clear and present danger to Search and Seizure Rights


Justice Alito is a clear and present danger to the minority of Americans who abhor the government's intrusion by search and seizure into their private papers and effects. Of the nine justices voting to invoke the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures of the vast amount of information citizens keep on their persons in the hard drive of their I-phones, Justice Alito would have it that the majority of politicians in the nation's disfunctional Congress can authorize the police to conduct the search the Supreme Court has prohibited.

In the face of Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing, in the "unanimous" Supreme Court decision Riley v. California, that "the founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols," Justice Alito tells us that, whether Roberts is correct or not in reading history, he thinks that the politicians, not the judges, should rule the question. Here he is, in all his wonder:

"It has long been accepted that written items found on the person of an arrestee may be examined and used at trial. (e.g., the contents of your wallet, purse, glove compartment, trash bag etc.). . . .


I agree that the [digital age] calls for a new balancing of law enforcement (i.e., Big Government) and privacy interests (i.e., the individual citizen).


I would reconsider the question here if either Congress or state legislatures, after assessing the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the privacy interests of cell phone owners, inact legislation based on categories of information or perhaps other variables. . . It would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument  of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures elected by the [Majority], are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to changes that have already occurred and those that most certainly will take place in the future." (Riley v. California 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4497.)


Where this fellow's brain is, one can certainly tell: Chief Justice Robert's phrase encapsulated the reason the people of the respective States, in 1789, amended the Constitution to include express prohibitions against the majority's use of governmental power to oppress the individual citizen, by rummaging about at will, through the charade of thinly veiled excuses—manufacturing an arrest, for example; you don't have your insurance card on your person while driving a car—in the places where the citizen secures his private papers and things. This fact of American history, Justice Alito's brain arrogantly ignores.


Joe Ryan