You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
Samuel Alito on Doe v. Groody
Yesterday we looked at the spin, disinformation and confusion around the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Today, we point you to John Hinderaker’s analysis of the Doe v. Groody decision by Samuel Alito. This is the one that is being referred to as the “strip search” case.
Groody was a lawsuit by two “Jane Doe” plaintiffs against four police officers. The plaintiffs claimed that they were illegally searched by the officers, and asked for money damages. The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the search did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. By a two-to-one vote, the 3rd Circuit panel upheld the trial court’s denial of the officers’ motion to dismiss the case. Alito was the dissenter.
The case arose out of the execution of a search warrant on a meth house. In the affidavit that the officers submitted to obtain the warrant, they noted that when drug dealers see that they are being raided, they commonly hide drugs on the persons of whoever may also be on the premises, hoping that the search warrant won’t allow the officers to search them. So, in this case, the officers requested permission to search anyone they found on the premises, not just the drug dealer who was the target of the raid.
Read the rest here.
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/11/01/samuel-alito-on-doe-v-groody/trackback/
