Scalia Twists Authors Words

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia twisted the meaning of an authors arguments to fit his own "reasoning" in an important case involving police misconduct, the author says.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Samuel Walker, professor emeritus of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and author of 13 books on policing and civil liberties, says:

Alas, as I surfed the Net for news about Hudson vs. Michigan, my excitement quickly turned to dismay, then horror. First, I learned that Justice Antonin Scalia cited me to support a terrible decision, holding that the exclusionary rule — which for decades prevented evidence obtained illegally by police from being used at trial — no longer applies when cops enter your home without knocking.

Alas, as I surfed the Net for news about Hudson vs. Michigan, my excitement quickly turned to dismay, then horror. First, I learned that Justice Antonin Scalia cited me to support a terrible decision, holding that the exclusionary rule — which for decades prevented evidence obtained illegally by police from being used at trial — no longer applies when cops enter your home without knocking.

Complete Article