Judicial Activism Alert!

Let's just write down when the government needs a warrant. It would certainly be easier to understand, and would end the death by a 1000 paper-cuts at around 993. A California court says a cop can enter your home and wake you up if they "suspect" you of drunk driving.

Re-read the case synopsis.

"The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening."

Key scary part: It was not the police that saw the suspect drunk driving, it was a neighbor. So now reasonable cause is a neighbor saying you did something wrong.

The justification for the ruling, and justification used by renegade activist judges in other cases, I'm looking at you Scalia (who I think is a major violator of his own "orininal intent" doctrine) is that the government does not need a warrant if evidence is at risk of destruction. OK, fine point, however...

(For those of our readers that do not have this committed to memory by now)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Notice the word "papers." Now by my reasoning "papers" are easily destroyed. You can eat, burn or shred them, even in 1776. So by actual example, you have the right to be secure in your papers, something that can be destroyed, unless there the government meets the above conditions. Also, note that "probable cause" only gets the warrant, when those conditions are met. "Probable cause" is NOT the key to warrantless searches, its the key to getting the warrant.