Scalia was a strict constitutionalist, and I know of no similar rulings where he would have supported this expansion of state power.

He was actually pretty hardcore on the 4th.

I can't see this getting through the USSC now. At least I hope not.

Excerpted:

Whether it's privacy in one's home, car or cellphone, Justice Antonin Scalia has emerged as one of the Court's most outspoken champions of Fourth Amendment rights in recent years, even if it means breaking faith and siding with liberal justices in closely divided cases.

Scalia's role as the premier defender of Fourth Amendment rights could be critical in a closely watched case currently before the Court about whether police can search a suspect's cellphone without a warrant upon arrest.

"Justice Scalia has been on the pro-privacy side of a lot of divided Fourth Amendment cases, especially recently ... [and] often very strongly," said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University.

In 2012, Scalia wrote the majority opinion reversing a defendant's conviction because the state gained key evidence by attaching a GPS device to his car. In 2013, he wrote a 5-4 opinion that police may not send a dog to sniff at a front door based on suspicion that drugs were being grown inside. Also in 2013, he wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by three liberal justices, against the court's 5-4 ruling upholding warrantless collection of DNA from persons who are arrested. Two weeks ago he lead another dissent against a 5-4 ruling permitting a police officer to stop a truck driver based on an anonymous tip that he's intoxicated.

"Relying on the history of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Scalia has become a frequent champion of broad Fourth Amendment protections — not only joining opinions by his more liberal colleagues, but also often writing powerful opinions in which they join," said Brianne Gorod, counsel for the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. "Notably, in every non-unanimous Fourth Amendment case last Term, Justice Scalia sided with the defense."

I'm honestly totally surprised that he would be on that side of it.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

And generally did not support extension of government powers. Including 4th amendment cases.

all your posts today defend Scalia, by the way.

and the thing is, despite your defense of him, there's still the matter of his vigorous defense of the government being able to put gay people in prison for homosexual acts.

how's that for his wanting to restrain government?

I'm presenting facts. And the fact is, on the fourth amendment, Scalia more often than not sided with the liberal wing of the court.

Why do you find facts so frightening?

from Slate:

In 2013, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., argued that by swabbing his cheek and logging his DNA in a statewide database, Maryland police had committed a search—without a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Maryland’s attorneys likely expected Scalia to support the challenged law, which allowed law enforcement officers to collect and store DNA from any arrestee; after all, the justice had recently voted to allow strip searches of anyone apprehended by the police. Instead, Scalia responded to the state’s opening arguments with a brutal salvo of disbelief.

Ultimately, Scalia’s vote wasn’t enough to invalidate Maryland’s law; the usually liberal Justice Stephen Breyer sided with the other conservatives to hold, 5–4, that the statute was constitutional. In response, Scalia wrote a piercing, acerbic dissent, parts of which he read from the bench. To Scalia, the most galling feature of the majority opinion was its acceptance of the notion that Maryland took King’s DNA simply to identify him—not to log his genetic sequence in a database, as it actually did. In describing this bald misrepresentation of the truth, Scalia essentially accuses the court of lying through its teeth.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/09/justice_antonin_scalia_s_brilliant_liberal_moments_on_the_supreme_court.html

look what it also says:

"When it comes to homes, cars and smartphones Scalia’s use of originalism is no hindrance despite technologies unavailable when the Constitution was crafted," Fredrickson said. "But when it comes to privacy matters concerning women’s bodies and sexuality in general, Scalia is nowhere to be found. The justice’s use of originalism therefore looks opportunistic or irrationally applied."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/antonin-scalia-fighter-privacy-rights-fourth-amendment

If I'm not mistaken this specific thread is about the fourth amendment. No one is disputing that justice Scalia disagreed with progressives on the vast majority of his judicial decisions. However, with regards to the fourth amendment, he clearly did not

no need to fluff his legacy.

This needs a SCOTUS ruling to stamp it out...

we're getting out of this mess.

I'm sure there are those here that think this ruling is wonderful because it's always the other guy you know.

Hope their rights get trampled and maybe they'll wake up.

When the "Establishment" gets their hooks in, it's difficult for the rank and file victims to get out of the mess.

I would say more than likely the cops argued probable cause due to odor.

If that is the case, this decision will not be overturned on federal appeal given Wisconsin is in the conservative 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS has an even split.

The mistake by the defendant was in allowing the cops through the door without a warrant. This should be a lesson for everybody. No matter what, cops show up on your door you do not let them in or speak with them without a warrant.