Also see:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. McLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)
I don't remember this case very well but it had sth to do with failing to provide "prompt" judicial determinations of probable cause to persons who were arrested without a warrant. Anyway O'Connor wrote the majority opinion which was joined by Rehnquist, White, Kennedy and Souter. Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens and Scalia dissented. Scalia beautifully wrote:
"The story is told of the elderly judge who, looking back over a long career, observes with satisfaction that, "when I was young, I probably let stand some convictions that should have been overturned, and when I was old I probably set aside some that should have stood; so overall, justice was [500 U.S. 44, 60] done. "I sometimes think that is an appropriate analog to this Court's constitutional jurisprudence, which alternately creates rights that the Constitution does not contain and denies rights that it does. Compare Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (right to abortion does exist) with Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (right to be confronted with witnesses, U.S. Const., Amdt. 6, does not). Thinking that neither the one course nor the other is correct, nor the two combined, I dissent from today's decision, which eliminates a very old right indeed."
Thanks to both of you -- I'm going to have to do some more reading.