| cheapbag214s |
 Posted: Sun 10:32, 01 Sep 2013 Post subject: Justice Kennedy wrote. |
|
| supported the issuance of the material-witness arrest warrant; and does not assert that his arrest would have been unconstitutional absent the alleged pretextual use of the warrant; we find no Fourth Amendment violation. Efficient and evenhanded application of the law demands that we look to whether the arrest is objectively justified,christian louboutin discount, rather than to the motive of the arresting officer.This conclusion went too far for Justice Anthony Kennedy,http://www.ewwealth.com/, once again the Court's swing-voter. He agreed that Ashcroft was protected by "qualified immunity" from al-Kidd's lawsuit-- all of the justices did-- but disagreed with Justice Scalia's view that the warrant itself was necessarily justified under Fourth Amendment law. "The Court's holding is limited to the arguments presented by the parties and leaves unresolved whether the Government's use of the material witness statute in this case was lawful,christian louboutin}, Justice Kennedy wrote. "Given the difficulty of these issues,louboutin sale, the Court is correct to address |
|
