Might it be reasonable to think that the car might have been stolen? Not according to the two Democrat appointees in the opinion issued by the D.C. Circuit today in United States v. Jackson. But yes, in Judge Robertss view in dissent.
Next question: Might it be reasonable to think that the cars trunk might contain some evidencethe cars real tags, items identifying or belonging to the real owner, or tools used in car theftthat the car was stolen? Lets say, further, that you had run across stolen tags on ten previous occasions and that on six or seven of those occasions the vehicles real tags were found in the trunk. Is it reasonable to check the trunk? Again, not according to the two Democrat appointees. But yes, according to Judge Robertss dissent.
My favorite part of the majority opinion is the assertion that real tags in a trunk simply cant be evidence of a crime because there is nothing illegal about having such tags in the trunk of an unregistered car. Theres nothing illegal either about having blood all over the floor of a room in your house where a person is thought to have been killed. But that might fairly be considered evidence.
It seems to me that some Democrats were calling for a nominee with common sensea quality particularly appropriate to Fourth Amendment judgments of reasonableness. I think its clear that President Bush has given them one.
Good post. Roberts should be judged on his record, not on who supports or dislikes him because of "feelings" about him.