A recent ruling in the robbery case of Fernandez v. California, has allowed officers to enter a residence despite being denied consent, and, they can do it without a warrant. The potential ripples from this have the many people in a frenzy as they try to predict the damage this could cause to our rights to privacy and due process. Not to mention the Fourth amendment, which states very clearly 'the right of the people to be secure in their house against unreasonable search and seizure'. Tim Cushing discusses the issue on the Crooks and Liars blogroll from a balanced and logical perspective in his recent article.
He begins with a summary of the 2009 case that started all this, and proceeds to respectfully argue both opinions in an admirable effort to clarify the impact of this new precedent. While he is clearly opposed to this corrosion of civil rights, he withholds his own reservations, instead he quotes from Judge Ginsburg, and refers to the much more spirited response of Gideon from A Public Defender to add weight to his argument.
The article is quite well written, and easily grabs the sentiment of the youth and libertarian demographics who are statistically more concerned with the balance of security and freedom. But it also reaches out to a wider audience by illustrating the ease with which law enforcement agencies are encroaching on the right of the public.
The piece is also accompanied by a PDF of the 33 page ruling on the case in question, as well several links to supporting documents and sources, which lends a high level of credibility to the work, more than compensating for the relative anonymity of Mr. Cushing himself. My own examination of his evidence in combination with some periphery research has lead me to believe that his information as well his worries, are not unfounded.
No comments:
Post a Comment