Ailto

Well theres one point that keeps coming up in the fight against the new nominee and that was his decision to allow police to strip search a ten year old girl to look for drugs, and I'm not sure how much weight this should have but she was not named on the search warrent. That makes it an illegal search and he up-held it. This is great insight into his line of thinking. Now in his deffence he points out that children are sometimes used by parents to hide drugs to avoid being caught. Ok I can see that case and that may well be true, therefore it is the job of the police to name the children on the search warrent or else they cannot be touched. I also am against strip searching a ten year old for the most obvious of moral reasons, but admitedly there may be cases where this is nesasary. Once again if the police dont do their jobs and fail to name everyone prior to the search then they have no rights to search them. I cannot go up to a random person and just start feeling them up looking for drugs or guns, so why should a cop? Are the police above the law? Maybe the police don't need to go to jail for illegally searching a child, but the evidence MUST be thrown out or the police will continue to break the law.

This is only one of many cases that will come under the scruitiny of the blogs, the question is wither or not the MSM will look into these cases. Fox will call it protecting the rights of the police to prosicute crimes, as apposed to violation of privacy.