Recent Michigan Supreme Court Ruling is Baffling: Is a Homeowner's Front Porch His Property, or is it Public Property?

The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a ruling last month that seems strange.

It concerned a case where a drug sniffing dog accompanied a police officer to a person's house in Detroit; the dog indicated the presence of drugs inside the home from on the person's front porch. The police officer then entered and made arrests.

I have no problem with the drug bust itself.

But one of the arguments made during the trial and appeal was that the use of the dog without a search warrant was illegal. Kyllo vs. US (2001), a U.S. Supreme Court case, established that using a thermal imaging device outside a person's home to detect heat lamps used to grow weed without a search warrant was illegal.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that dog sniffing dogs are outside the bounds of 4th Amendment protection, and that a person's front porch is public property, not private.

This makes no sense. Even if a person's front porch is considered to be public property, to get to it one has to trespass on the land between the road, which is public, and the house, which sits on private property.

This ruling threatens the property rights of homeowners. The police should have a search warrant for a drug bust; how hard can it be to talk to a judge to issue such a warrant?

The police should cover all their bases and do the extra paperwork. An operation like the one they broke up won't disappear overnight; it'll be there when they arrive with the warrant.

Supreme Court Declares Washington DC's Ban on Handguns in Violation of 2nd Amendment

Washington DC's 32-year ban on handguns within the city was overturned by the Supreme Court yesterday.

The vote was along idealogical lines, as expected, and settles an old question of individual gun ownership rights vs. gun ownership as part of a well-regulated militia. Both sides are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment itself.

Now, can they get back to enforcing the laws already on the books instead of trying to ban guns outright? And it should be noted that banning guns in DC didn't substantially change the crime rate as gun control advocates said it would. In fact, DC was the U.S. murder capitol several times since the ban took place.

So much for that theory.

Yesterday's Supreme Court Decision on Death Penalty Was Messy, But Correct

Yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court on applying the death penalty to child rapists when no life has been lost was a tough one, but was also correct.

Before I go any further, rape in ANY form is a HORRIFIC crime that does need to be punished by life in prison without any possibility of parole.

"An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, name for a name, life for a life" is a mantra that is often quoted by death penalty supporters, but it also implies some kind of balance in the application of the death penalty. And for the last 30+ years, the death penalty has not been imposed without a special circumstance: the death of the victim as a result of the crime.

I think the possibility of a death penalty wouldn't deter an animal that unleashes this kind of hell on a child anyways; they're going to do it because they think they can get away with it. I think that's a common belief among among criminal elements.

This ruling affects similar laws in six or more states; the federal statutes remain intact.

This is a victory for death penalty opponents, but the victory is bittersweet, given the abomination that child rape is. This ruling can be considered a step forward in creating a more uniform system when the death penalty is being considered, which is good news. In time, I think this court decision will be proven correct.

Clint Eastwood vs. Spike Lee: War of Words Heating Up

Hollywood directors Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood seem to be getting into a war of words and unlike the Donald Trump vs. Rosey O'Donnell wars, this one is much uglier and not entertaining at all.

It stems from comments that Lee made about two of Eastwood's 2006 movies--"Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima." Lee criticized Eastwood for not portraying any African American soliders in his movies. Eastwood responded by saying that if there had been any African-American men helping to raise the flag at Iwo Jima in the famous photograph that he would have had it in his film.

Then he told Spike Lee to "shut his face."

Lee responded in kind by saying that "Eastwood is not my father, and we're not on a plantation."

OK, gentlemen, KNOCK IT OFF! This sounds like a conversation that needs to be taken off-line and settled privately. This is definitely not funny.

Obama vs. McCain: Ho-Hum

So it's to be Obama vs. McCain in the fall. Sounds pretty boring to me.

While I'm happy that one of this blog's stated objectives has been accomplished with Senator Clinton withdrawing from the race against Obama, what are we left with? An ultra-liberal against someone whose maverick credentials are giving conservatives heartburn.

I'm not going to make up my mind now, but I'm not happy about November. Looks like a lose-lose situation to me.

DNC Agrees to Seat Florida and Michigan Delegates at Half-Strength: Obama's Getting Votes He Didn't Earn in Michigan

The rules committee of the Democratic National Committee restored Florida and Michigan's delegates to this summer's Democratic National Convention, but they have half-strength votes. That's fine with me as it's in compliance with their bylaws. And it's more than what I thought was going to happen.

I thought they would seat Florida's delegates at half-strength, but not Michigan's, as Obama removed his name from the ballot.

Instead, the rules committee is giving Obama votes he didn't earn--he wasn't a candidate on Michigan's ballot as he pulled his own name off the ballot months before the election--and Clinton won 55% of the votes. The other 45% should be going to the convention as undeclared delegates who can vote for who they want once they get there.

Obama was not required to pull his name off the ballot, but he did it, regardless of the consequences.

And if Clinton does challenge the awarding of unearned delegates to Obama, in this one instance, I'm going to root for Senator Clinton in her challenge. I almost get the feeling that Obama will fall 3-5 delegates short of clinching the nomination, and the fight over Michigan's delegates will intensify.

This situation is entirely the fault of the DNC. And as many had hoped, including me, Florida and Michigan threw wrenches into the DNC machine and they were forced into headline-making decisions regarding the disposition of the votes of both states.

Perhaps the next time around, they'll follow their own rules when it comes to states violating their guidelines?