# Alito confirmation hearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187 "2006-01-09T18:25:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/201 "2006-01-14T07:03:00Z")
I love how liberals bemoan it when conservative presidents nominate conservative judges - like there is something wrong with appointing someone that shares your political views to an office. Were these same Democrats complaining when Clinton nominated his choices for SCOTUS? Will they complain about partisanship when the next liberal president appoints a judicial activist to the highest court? Does that mean that the Senate should be a rubber-stamp for the President’s choices? Of course not - but the Senate must accept the fact that the President will select officers that agree with their ideology. The question should be one of competence. Of course conservatives are guilty of the same thing, but there is one major difference - Robert Bork. The abuse he suffered went far beyond “Advice and Consent of the Senate”. Since then, I feel that the Democratic senators feel that it is their solemn obligation to play political games with every Republican judicial nominee. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/202 "2006-01-14T07:48:50Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > Wich rulings in particular. I hear he has quit a few under his belt. Here’s a few: _Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development_ (wrongful termination lawsuit): Alito overturned the plaintiff’s victory against the state of Pennsylvania, declaring that Congress exceeded its power in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act, rendering it largely unenforceable. The Supreme Court later upheld FMLA in _Nevada v. Hibbs,_ leaving Alito in the losing side of the issue. _Bray v. Marriott Hotels_ (racial discrimination case): Alito wrote for the minority view that “it is not enough for the evidence to be such that a reasonable factfinder could disagree with the employer as to which candidate was better qualified. Instead, the evidence must be such that a reasonable factfinder can infer that the employer was not truly looking for the best qualified candidate.” The majority responded that employment discrimination laws “would be eviscerated” by his proposed standards. _Riley v. Taylor:_ Alito (again writing for the minority view) upheld rejection of a jury discrimination claim, citing “Although only about 10% of the population is left-handed, left-handers have won five of the last six presidential elections. Our ‘amateur with a calculator’ would conclude that there is little chance of randomly selecting left-handers in five out of six presidential elections.” The Third Circuit majority spanked him by saying it “minimize(d) the history of discrimination against black jurors.” _Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania:_ Alito (in the minority view yet again) disallowed a medical student injured in an accident to sue her school for failing to provide reasonable accommodation for her injury, writing that the student failed to show that it was not “other personal factors” that caused her to stop attending classes. The majority said that Alito’s standards were so high that “few if any… cases would survive summary judgment.” And there’s the infamous _Doe vs. Groody,_ where Alito (dissenting yet again from the majority) would have allowed a ten-year-old girl and her mother to be strip-searched by police, even though neither of them was named in the warrant. Alito wrote that he knew “no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face.” To summarize from the nonpartisan Yale Law School’s [“Alito Project”](http://campusprogress.org/uploads/YLSAlitoProjectFinalReport.pdf) (PDF) review of his federal opinions, > [@](#): > > **Procedural Fairness:** When given latitude in cases involving individuals’ procedural rights, Judge Alito consistently has decided to limit access to courts, at times leaving litigants with fewer procedural options. He has construed narrowly the constitutional requirements that individuals receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of their rights. He has strictly interpreted standing requirements and has limited causes of action… > > **Law Enforcement:** Judge Alito’s opinions reveal a willingness to defer to law > enforcement officials in criminal cases and a lack of sensitivity to class-based disparities in the criminal justice system. There is some evidence that he may treat wealthy litigants differently… > > **Civil Rights:** In the area of civil rights law, Judge Alito consistently has used > procedural and evidentiary standards to rule against female, minority, age, and disability claimants… > > **Workers’ Rights:** In the related field of workers’ rights, Judge Alito consistently has sought to limit the scope and reach of statutes protecting workers’ rights and to raise the bar that employee plaintiffs must overcome to bring legal claims… The employee or union would have prevailed in only five of the 35 employment and labor opinions he wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/203 "2006-01-14T16:12:40Z")
From Yale (according to Rjung): > [@](#): > > Civil Rights: In the area of civil rights law, Judge Alito consistently has used > procedural and evidentiary standards to rule against female, minority, age, and disability claimants… It is surprising to me that legal writers — a demographic that I had presumed would employ scrupulous logic — would imply the affirmation of a consequent. It is a fact, of course, that Alito has consistently used those same standards to rule against every clamant that he has ruled against. They might as well have reported that he consistently used periods for ending his sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/204 "2006-01-14T16:57:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is a fact, of course, that Alito has consistently used those same standards to rule against every clamant that he has ruled against. A valid point, but weakened when considering the rest of the (shortened) quote: > [@Yale report](#): > > He has taken a markedly different approach to religious discrimination, ruling in favor of religious minorities in various contexts. I’m not sure what standards outside of “procedural and evidentiary” were applied to religious discrimination, but the implication is that they exist. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/205 "2006-01-14T17:13:12Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let’s say for a minute that’s true. That would be 55-0 on the Republican side and 10-35 on the Democratic side. If it works out that way, the Republicans (who will have voted 100% on one side) will accuse the Democrats (who will have voted 77.8% on the other side) of partisanship. > > I take issue with your view that the filibuster is anti-democratic. What it does is prevent the tyranny of the majority. At times the stampede of public opinion needs some razor tape thrown in front of it, and the filibuster is a nice tool to have in the box for such a purpose. Sure. But given the level of awareness the information age _allows_\*, and the revolving-door nature of elective politics, is it more important to use the filibuster to actually halt the process than to use it to get your group’s dissent “on record” with a filibuster-sized exclamation point? \*Granted, one has to sort through a lot of dross to get to the gems, and not everyone is up to the effort. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/206 "2006-01-14T17:16:15Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > And there’s the infamous _Doe vs. Groody,_ where Alito (dissenting yet again from the majority) would have allowed a ten-year-old girl and her mother to be strip-searched by police, even though neither of them was named in the warrant. Alito wrote that he knew “no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face.” This is an almost shockingly incomplete description of the facts in [_Groody_](http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/alito/dissentingopinions/doe2004.pdf) (warning, PDF). The search warrant in _Groody_ contained an affidavit sworn to by the requesting officer and signed by the issuing magistrate judge reading, in relevant part: > [@](#): > > The search should also include **all occupants of the residence** as the information developed shows that [Doe] has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and many attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons. > > This application seeks permission to search **all occupants of the residence** and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction of any evidence requested in this warrant. It is the experience of your co–affiants that drug dealers often attempt to do so when faced with impending apprehension and may give such evidence to persons who do not acutally reside or own/rent the premises. This is done to prevent the discovery of said items in hopes that > said persons will not be subject to search when police arrive. > > As a result of the information developed, your affiant requests that a search warrant … be issued for … the residence of [John Doe] **and all occupants therein**. (Empahsis added) The face of the warrant, however, only listed John Doe as a target for search (rathe than all occupants), and failed to specifically incorporate the text of the attached affidavit. The issue before the court was not whether the search warrant was sufficient for the purposes of an accused’s arrest and trial, but rather whether the officers executing the warrant had acted reasonably in searching Jane and Mary Doe (the mother and daughter in question). That is, the question was whether the officers could reasonably have believed that the warrant allowed them to search other persons on the premesis. The majority basically said that for the attached affidavit to reasonably inform the officer’s belief in the propriety of their actions, it must be specifically incorporated by reference. Alito’s dissent basically says that this is an overly technical way of determining the reasonableness of the officer’s belief – that, essentially, the fact that the affidavit was attached to the warrant should be enough to say the officers had a reasonable belief in their authority to perform the search. Both positions are eminently reasonable. The case turns on a narrow point of draftsmanship. It’s silly to say this case demonstrates Alito to be some kind of threat to the American people. Let’s be clear: this case turns on the failure to include a phrase like “and persons described in the attached affidavit” on the face of the warrant. If those seven words had been there, the majority would also have said the officers acted reasonably in their search of Jane and Mary Doe. I also note, FWIW, that the searches were performed by a female officer who took the searchees into a bathroom out of view of the other officers. While no search is pleasant, the officers in question took steps to minimize the awkwardness of the situation. I further note that there is no general exception to searches held by mothers or their children – necessarily so, because if that was the case, an investigation’s target would simply hide their contraband on the nearest mother or child. Now, **rjung** , given that you and your ilk have so completely mischaracterized this case, why should we take you seriously when you raise other objections? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/207 "2006-01-14T18:50:54Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > To summarize from the nonpartisan Yale Law School’s [“Alito Project”](http://campusprogress.org/uploads/YLSAlitoProjectFinalReport.pdf) (PDF) review of his federal opinions, There is no indication that this is a nonpartisan group. Informal ≠ nonpartisan. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/208 "2006-01-14T19:46:31Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Here’s a few: Umm, I have read them, and while I may disagree with most of the cherry picked ones you listed, I don’t see anything there “batshit crazy”. As a matter of fact, I recall many of these rulings being brought up in the hearings. And considering that the calls for filibuster have actually lessened since, it would seem _you_ are out of the mainstream. As **Dewey** intimated, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you have nothing but hyperbole and mischaracterizations to spew? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/209 "2006-01-14T20:52:37Z")
I have to say that I agree with Dewey in this instance. Not from a legal standpoint, certainly, since I lack even the least credential to make a legal comment. But from the standpoint of simple deduction and general philosophical ethics, the comments from Yale are nothing more than premises extrapolated from conclusions for the purpose of attempting to validate a preconception. It’s all bassackwards. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/210 "2006-01-14T20:56:51Z")
For what it’s worth, the ACLU has taken an [official stance](http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23387res20060109.html) against Samuel Alito. They’ve only done that twice before in their entire 86 year history (William Rehnquist, Robert Bork). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/211 "2006-01-14T20:57:53Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I’m not sure what standards outside of “procedural and evidentiary” were applied to religious discrimination, but the implication is that they exist. Oh, sure. But if I say that the moon is made of green cheese, then the implication is that the moon has grown mold. Interesting, but useless. Keep in mind that every implication with a false antecedent is a true implication. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/212 "2006-01-14T21:35:41Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > For what it’s worth, the ACLU has taken an [official stance](http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23387res20060109.html) against Samuel Alito. If I had any doubts, that in itself would be enough to convince me that Alito is the man for the job ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/213 "2006-01-14T21:44:22Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > For what it’s worth, the ACLU has taken an [official stance](http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23387res20060109.html) against Samuel Alito. They’ve only done that twice before in their entire 86 year history (William Rehnquist, Robert Bork). Does that mean they endorsed all the other justices, or that they just get together and issue this kind of statement when they oppose a candidate? I tried to find out if they endorsed or opposed Roberts, but the best I could come up with from their web site was: [ACLU Calls for Full Release of Roberts’ Records, Urges Careful Consideration As Senate Committee Approves Nominee for Next Chief Justice.](http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/20089prs20050922.html) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/214 "2006-01-15T17:54:55Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Both positions are eminently reasonable. The case turns on a narrow point of draftsmanship. It’s silly to say this case demonstrates Alito to be some kind of threat to the American people. Do you really want to get on the slippery slope that allows authority figures to gloss over people’s rights because of “narrow point[s] of draftsmanship”? And all this time I thought the point of having laws was to establish a social contract that is held to everyone from the highest to the lowest. I didn’t know it was just a glorified game of semantics, where the rules can be skirted depending on one’s skill in interpreting draftsmanship. \ ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/215 "2006-01-15T18:25:12Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Do you really want to get on the slippery slope that allows authority figures to gloss over people’s rights because of “narrow point[s] of draftsmanship”? > > And all this time I thought the point of having laws was to establish a social contract that is held to everyone from the highest to the lowest. I didn’t know it was just a glorified game of semantics, where the rules can be skirted depending on one’s skill in interpreting draftsmanship. \ :rolleyes: Did you read anything I wrote? Or the case itself? It’s only 17 pages, inclusive of majority, dissent, and headnote materials. Christ almighty. Facts are like kryptonite to you. What “rules were skirted” in this case, exactly? Please, no hand-waving: I want to know _precisely_ what your objection to the execution of this warrant is, and why you so object. The warrant would unquestionably have allowed for the search had it simply mentioned the affidavit on its face – the affidavit that was signed by the judge and that was attached to the search warrant in question. The case turned on the reasonableness of the officer’s belief that the attachment of the affidavit was sufficient to permit them to search the mother and daughter. Surely even if one agrees with the majority that it was not, one cannot rationally transform the opposing view into one of utter disregard for individual rights. Again, given that you are now willfully avoiding the actual facts of the case, why should we treat anything you say with the slightest amount of seriousness? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/216 "2006-01-15T19:40:56Z")
(noting that I’m on no one’s side, and still trying to have an open mind) **Dewey**. As a lawyer, do you have an opinion as to _why_ would the ACLU oppose Alito, having only previously done this in the case of Bork and Rehnquist? I assume it’s strictly a case of his perceived? rulings against individual rights. Newspapers from 1971 said about the ACLU opposition > [@](#): > > “We know William Rehnquist as an advocate of dragnet arrests, as an opponent of racial integration, as a champion of executive authority to engage in electronic eavesdropping and political surveillance as a campaigner for pretrial incarceration and as an engineer of the Justice Department’s programs to abrogate the rights of persons accused of crimes.” This was from the head of the ACLU at the time in it’s announced opposition to the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/217 "2006-01-16T00:41:09Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The case turned on the reasonableness of the officer’s belief that the attachment of the affidavit was sufficient to permit them to search the mother and daughter. The daughter was ten years old, Dewey. To my mind, that adds greatly to the heinousness of the act. I say “heinousness” very deliberately. A strip search isn’t like taking a deposition or getting a set of fingerprints – it’s a process that violate’s the individual’s privacy in a MAJOR way. I would like there to be some SERIOUS protections for people to ensure that such searches are necessary. Especially for searches of MINORS, dammit. And that would be ONE WHOLE HELL OF A LOT MORE than some random officer’s “reasonable belief.” A warrant … yeah, a warrant signed by a judge indicating that there was some specific reason why a specific minor should be strip-searched … that would work. But for some reason, I don’t see a lot of judges signing such warrants, especially in places where they’re elected. Regular folks who aren’t legal solons tend to look down on such conduct, Dewey. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/218 "2006-01-16T02:18:09Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The daughter was ten years old, Dewey. To my mind, that adds greatly to the heinousness of the act. I say “heinousness” very deliberately. A strip search isn’t like taking a deposition or getting a set of fingerprints – it’s a process that violate’s the individual’s privacy in a MAJOR way. I would like there to be some SERIOUS protections for people to ensure that such searches are necessary. Especially for searches of MINORS, dammit. And that would be ONE WHOLE HELL OF A LOT MORE than some random officer’s “reasonable belief.” A warrant … yeah, a warrant signed by a judge indicating that there was some specific reason why a specific minor should be strip-searched … that would work. > > But for some reason, I don’t see a lot of judges signing such warrants, especially in places where they’re elected. Regular folks who aren’t legal solons tend to look down on such conduct, Dewey. Are you complaining about the law in general or what? If you want the law changed, I doubt this is the thread for it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/219 "2006-01-16T03:31:23Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > **Dewey**. As a lawyer, do you have an opinion as to _why_ would the ACLU oppose Alito, having only previously done this in the case of Bork and Rehnquist? I assume it’s strictly a case of his perceived? rulings against individual rights. I dunno…outrage is good for fundraising, I suppose. At the very least, if there’s a reason to be outraged over the Alito nomination, Alito’s dissent in _Groody_ isn’t it. (Upon reason the ACLU press release, I see their opposition is premised more on Alito’s views on executive branch power than on his views with regard to the fourth amendment.) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/220 "2006-01-16T03:54:53Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The daughter was ten years old, Dewey. To my mind, that adds greatly to the heinousness of the act. I say “heinousness” very deliberately. A strip search isn’t like taking a deposition or getting a set of fingerprints – it’s a process that violate’s the individual’s privacy in a MAJOR way. I would like there to be some SERIOUS protections for people to ensure that such searches are necessary. Especially for searches of MINORS, dammit. And that would be ONE WHOLE HELL OF A LOT MORE than some random officer’s “reasonable belief.” For starters – and I really cannot say this enough – **THIS WAS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT**. The court was not asked to decide if minors should be entitled to heightened fourth amendment analysis, nor for that matter were they asked to decide whether a searchee must be specifically named in the warrant in order for a search to be legally conducted. What they were asked to decide was whether a statement as to the parties to be searched included in an attached affidavit (but not incorporated on the face of the warrant) was sufficient for an officer to hold a reasonable belief that his search was legal. I also note that the “reasonable belief” standard is not applied in determining the validity of the warrant (e.g., when a defense attorney seeks to exclude evidence uncovered by the search at trial). It is only applied, as in the _Groody_ case, when parties to a search bring a lawsuit against the searching officer. In that situation, the law is that if the officer reasonably believed his actions to be legal, he should not be subjected to civil liability (and again, both majority and dissent agreed that this was the black-letter legal standard to be applied). Incidentally, calling this a “strip search” is somewhat hyperbolic. It isn’t like the officers were breaking out the rubber gloves. The majority described the conduct of the search as follows: > [@](#): > > The officers decided to search Jane and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for the meter patrol officer. When she arrived, the female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom. They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found. With the search completed, both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to the ground floor to await the end of the search. Embarassing? Sure. But hardly the actions of a goose-stepping gestapo. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > A warrant … yeah, a warrant signed by a judge indicating that there was some specific reason why a specific minor should be strip-searched … that would work. Well, again, **THIS WAS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT**. Had the warrant incorporated the affidavit by reference, then even the majority would have concluded the search was proper. And the affidavit, as noted, did not single people out by name. It authorized a search of the house and “any occupants of the residence.” “Any occupants” means just that, any occupants, regardless of age or gender. The law does not provide heightened warrant requirements for minors or for women. And even if providing such requirements would be a good policy, that was not the issue before the court. Incidentally, it’s a good policy. As both majority and dissent note, crafting such a rule would simply allow the search target to hide his contraband on a minor or on a female on the premesis, playing the odds that they were not specifically named in the warrant. Do you like the idea of children being forced to act as drug mules? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > But for some reason, I don’t see a lot of judges signing such warrants, especially in places where they’re elected. Regular folks who aren’t legal solons tend to look down on such conduct, Dewey. The judge in this case signed such a warrant – he signed the affidavit attached to the warrant. Surely he was aware that “any occupants” could potentially include minors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=12)