Samual Alito Proves He Will Strive To Establish Justice

A Washington D.C. news article included the following about a case addressed by the court Samual Alito was on and a summary of the judicial decisions rendered therein.

In a 2004 decision, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the case of four police officers who faced a lawsuit after the search of a mother and her 10-year-old daughter in the course of executing a search warrant for narcotics.

The court said "searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." The court pointed out that "a search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside."

Alito dissented in the case, saying the best reading of the warrant was that it authorized the search of anyone found on the premises. He added that even if the warrant didn't explicitly give that authorization, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so."

If you read the Amendment in question you will find that it treats a person's body like the property of the person, The normal procedure is that when premises are searched all property on those premises is also subject to search as any other limits would be unreasonable.

A second argument based on Supreme Court precedent used in Minnesota v. Carter is that individuals whom are found at an area being searched for drugs which is a commercial endeavor have no reasonable expectation of privacy since their privacy has already been violated by the initial search.

A third argument relies on history in that one purpose the fourth amendment was written was to forbid the use of a writ of assistance which was a class of general warrant used during colonial times that allowed the government to search any home, business, or person it desired.

This case does not fall either into that category of a general warrant or into an unreasonable mandatory warantless search which is also forbidden. Why I say the search is reasonable is because the police were conducting a search in an area suspected on containing drugs and because the individuals being searched inhabited that area and therefore give police reason to suspect them of being involved.