A couple of readers seemed interested enough to want to see the full text of the Iowa Supreme Court decision restricting willy-nilly cop searches when you're busted for a faulty license plate light.
The decision text.
There's also a political element working.
The decision was 5-1, Waterman dissenting. The seventh justice, Mansfield, sat it out because he was on the appellate court which upheld the illegal search of the defendant's truck.
Both Waterman and Mansfield are new justices, appointed this year because of a strange development.
In 2009 the high court offended social conservatives by ruling, unanimously, that the Iowa Constitution forbade a ban on gay marriages. For this the Vander Platts Window Peeps* decided to oust every justice up for retention.They succeeded, and three justices were ejected, two of them replaced by the authoritarians Waterman and Mansfield.
So, if you dislike judges prone to give the cops everything they want,** your preliminary "no" voting list should include Their Honors Waterman and Mansfield. Of course your decision won't be that easy if you agree that a vital government function is restricting the spouse pool for the GLBT set.
(The third new judge, Bruce Zager, agreed with the majority that jackbooted intrusions need severe limits.)
---
**Vander Platts was once most notable for losing his elections. Then, for a time this year, he enjoyed a good deal of national media attention as the Iowa Caucuses kingmaker because he purports to lead the anti-sin brigades around here. Not so much, lately. His Queen Bachmann and King Perry have raved themselves into ridicule. His tentative King Cain seems to have indulged in a little grabass with office girls, which Vander Platts woulld see as anti-scriptural. And his other King-pro-tem, Santorum, just can't seem to turn his wife's muffins into political support.
**...because officer safety is paramount, not to mention battling the scourge of reefer madness.
3 comments:
I read (most of) the decision, and I'm pretty thrilled with it. Particularly, that the majority's opinion is largely that It's Just Wrong, That's Why.
The lone dissenter writes like a member of the PD who's search is about to get tossed out.
In my opinion, it's a good litmus test that a constitutional argument, state or federal, should only be made in the expansion of individual liberty. Any judge who finds him/herself on the other side of that logic needs to take a loooooong look at things.
tweaker
The dissenting judge's comments about the "friendly" conversation in the squad car remind my of the cop ploy regularly seen on L&O and other cop tv shows: "We can't help you if you don't talk to us now". I would fall out of my chair if some suspect asked, "And just how are you going to help me?" JAGSC
Perfect.
I thought about Waterman's emphasis on the cordiality, too. It just reinforces my belief that a guy does well to regard everyone -- known friends excepted -- like siding salesman offering you a free job for demonstration purposes.
Post a Comment