Posted by Orin Kerr:
A Quick Reaction to Radley Balko's Comment:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_19-2006_11_25.shtml#1164481172
My [1]co-blogger Jonathan posts an interesting comment from Radley
Balko about liability for search warrants, with the addition that
Radley's comment is "worth repeating." I have a different take:
[2]Radley's comment strikes me as problematic on a number of levels.
First, it isn't an accurate expression of the law, either from the
standpoint of self-defense law or the standpoint of civil actions
against the police. Second, as best I can tell, we really don't know
the facts of the Johnston case to which the post refers. A lot of
bloggers just seem to know, but as far as I can tell we have a lot of
speculation without a solid basis to know what happened.
Third, Radley's "pretty simple" solution seems quite troubling to
me. Under his proposed solution -- "stop invading people's homes for
nonviolent offenses" -- a person could commit any white collar fraud,
embezzle money from the elderly, bribe Congressmen, or engage in a
global child pornography trading ring knowng that the police won't
invade their home to collect evidence against them. I assume these
crimes are all nonviolent offenses, and if I understand Radley's idea,
homes wouldn't be searched for evidence of such crimes being
committed. That doesn't seem like a very good solution to me.
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1164468223.shtml
2. http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027258.php#027258
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
