Welcome

Thanks for stopping by my little place on the web. This parking spot is not for me to rant (though there will certainly be some of that), but as a place for my former and current students to converse about the full gamut of law school questions and about the class assignments and goals: you know I feel that conversation is the best learning experience.

So, follow. Check in every few days and chat away: anything is fair game (remember, I live vicariously through all your wild lives). To start, some of you already in law school can express some wisdom since decision time is beginning to arrive for this year’s seniors, and those of you currently being abused can ask the world your questions about the class assignments.

This is for you. Enjoy.

-Prof. B.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Jardines comments


Okay – since a couple of people actually asked (believe it or not) – a few early thoughts on Jardines (thanks to sabbatical, I was able to sleep in):

1. Told you so! (There really is a reason for Sally Handmaker’s gift of the “I am Always Right” sign in my office.)

2. Scalia had to “save” Kyllo, but that’s not really the reason for the majority decision (and notice how little real legal analysis there is): the State lost in the opening paragraph of their brief: their ONLY argument was that a dog sniff is not a search under Caballes. As someone we all know and love often argued in class, the holding in Caballes is that a dog sniff is not a search of a CAR on a PUBLIC highway and, as Kyllo held (independent of the garbage about something not in reach of the general public; but notice, the concurrence equates the thermal gun and the dog), a house is a HOUSE dammit, and the privacy rights are different (realize how the majority just eases through this argument).
Rabb was correct: once the police “search” (and in both Rabb and Jardines they WERE searching) a house, they have crossed the line and need to develop real probable cause for a warrant.

3. The concurrence finally gets to the Katz test, but it was not needed here but will be in closer cases (what happens when the dog is not “searching”?)

4. Exactly WHAT is the rule of the dissent?

5. When you have time, go back and read the transcript of the oral argument – really notice how little of what the Court asked ended up as dispositive.

OK - learning time

Listen to this and ask yourself:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144

Is this the best oral argument the one side could find?


Told you so! Notice the author

Jardines IS a search.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_jifl.pdf

Friday, March 1, 2013

yes, this IS where I used to live

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/fluoride-returns-to-pinellas-water-at-midnight/1276900