Latest

I want to bring to your attention a great resource for debunking bad science posing as policy analysis. The Statistical Assesment Service (STATS) at George Mason University says its mission is "correcting scientific misinformation in the media resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies." And it is very good at what it does. STATS got on my radar again this week with a nice report on the British "skunk" controversy, the dispute in the British press over just how much stronger skunk is than regular weed and whether skunk is causing teens to turn into schizophrenics. "Do Skunk Stats Stink? examines the controversy and the often overheated claims swirling around it. Check it out. The skunk article was written by Trevor Butterworth, but much of the examination of statistical claims related to drug policy is done by Maia Szalavitz, an uncommonly gifted and acute observer of the statistical drug wars. This month, Szalavitz has gone after Joe Califano's National Center for Alcohol and Substance Abuse, which recently raised alarms over college student drinking and drugging. "Is There a College Substance Abuse Crisis?" Szalavitz asks, or is this yet another example of CASA's manipulating the numbers? Read it and find out. She also blogged on the Huffington Post on the Richard Paey case. Paey is the Florida pain patient doing a 25-year sentence as a drug dealer for trying to obtain sufficient pain meds. And Szalavitz took on CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has lately been on a crusade to revitalize the drug war. In addition to gallantly appearing with the populist poseur, she took him to task in print with "Lou Dobbs on Drugs. Check out any or all of these pieces to see how statistical analysis and careful argumentation is done right. STATS is a valuable resource for all of us.

Cross-posted from Flex Your Rights

We've got some more required reading for all you "4th Amendment is dead" fools who keep farting on our freedom parade. I know, there's no shortage of police, judges, and prosecutors who can't find big enough boots to trample your rights with. Believe me, I know. But the law evolves over time, as does the behavior of our public servants. This month brought a couple examples of the ability of State Courts to set a higher threshold of 4th Amendment protection for the citizens they serve.

This week, the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected the State's argument that the inadvertent discovery of marijuana in a home justified searching a lockbox found elsewhere in the residence.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice William Hill, said the state failed to prove the search that disclosed the evidence which was the basis for the charge against Benton was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Hill's opinion quoted the amendment that protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures and case law "because we wish to make clear that the issue presented in a case such as this is one of the most important known to Anglo-American jurisprudence."

Meanwhile, in Vermont, the State Supreme Court has issued an impressive ruling declaring that post-arrest vehicle searches require a warrant. I've long lamented the unfortunate search-incident-to-arrest doctrine, which holds that officers may automatically search a vehicle after arresting the driver. I understand that police believe arrestees are more likely to be involved in unrelated criminal activity. Still, the "officer safety" justification that has been used to uphold these searches simply doesn't apply, since an arrested suspect has no access to their vehicle.

Vermont has now departed from U.S. Supreme Court precedent by requiring that officers obtain a warrant before performing post-arrest vehicle searches. Constitutional minimum standards require states to uphold at least the same amount of Bill of Rights protection as the federal government. Pete Guither observes hilariously that "actually, the federal Bill of Rights provides greater protections from unreasonable searches and seizures than does the federal government."

Still, the failure of the federal government to abide by their own standards does not displace the important ability of states to provide greater levels of privacy protection to their citizens. I think this pretty much says it all:

"The warrant requirement is robust, alive and well under the Vermont Constitution. It's gasping on life support under federal law," said Michael Mello, a professor at Vermont Law School in South Royalton. "It's a reaffirmation of Vermont -- we're special, we're different -- and the subtext is we're smarter and better than you, United States Supreme Court."

Let's hope other states continue to outsmart the U.S. Supreme Court. When it comes to the 4th Amendment, it really isn't that hard.