“but upon probable cause”

November 28th, 2006 Opinion

The Kathryn Johnston incident, well covered by Radley Balko, in a great part seems to devolve on the Fourth Amendment.  Ms. Johnston is dead - having died in the security of her home where she resided for 17 years. She is dead precisely because - what ever else might be said - numerous public officials participated in a blatant and egregious violation of the Forth Amendment. Because they can.
Now whether or not we actually have a constitution that protects “ours rights” has been hotly debated for much of its history.  In fact, the Honorable John Marshall (ca. 1830) held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, only districts under Federal jurisdiction.  And until -and even despite - the 14th amendment (equal protection under the laws) that little point still remains unclear.  So this discussion would be held moot by some of our esteemed legal professionals.

But “the proof is in the pudding”.  Here, there is but little question that the 4th was violated - so what does that mean?  To some, it might be easy to say that it was an inconsequential oversight.  The “greater good” of protecting the country against the evils of drugs (qualify: illegal drugs; Viagra and the like clearly excepted!) makes sacrificing individual protection under the law a trivial sacrifice. Unless of course you just happened to be Kathryn Johnston.

You can read the news, read the posts, and even reach a logical conclusion about all this - but then just exactly what can you do about it?