This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

U.S. Supreme Court

Apr. 26, 2014

What's next, a bad driving exception to the Fourth Amendment?

"After today's opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed." That pretty much sums up a recent decision. By Mason C. Clutter


By Mason C. Clutter


"After today's opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving." This ominous prediction, expressed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in the dissenting opinion in Navarette v. California, 2014 DJDAR 4912...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up