Re:Technology not widely available (Score 1)

I think that it's largely a good decision in that it says that it was a violation of the sanctity of the home (which has traditionally been afforded profound protection by the Courts), and at minimum would require a search warrant. However, I do feel that the "widely available" part is poorly constructed in that, like the trimester approach in the Roe v. Wade decision, it leaves open a hole where someone can warp the decision's original intent. More case law is going to have to be written to clarify and lock up that hole. Hopefully the good guys will get there first (but don't hold your breath). Scalia's intent in the decision is right here, but he left gaps. I'm frankly just surprized that his intent seems to be on target here - that simply because there's some spiffy new technology, it doesn't mean that the police can circumvent proper proceedure or the individual's Constitutional protections. Usually Scalia's off the mark, which is probably why so many posters are suspicious of it.