Scalia, writing for the majority in Hudson vs. Detroit, argued that the courts need not enforce the knock-and-announce rule long embedded in American jurisprudence because there are safeguards in place within the law enforcement community to take care of the problem. He cited a study by Samuel Walker, a professor at the University of Omaha, to back up his assertion.
Not so fast there says Walker, who serves on the Panel on Policing of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences:
Scalia turned my research completely on its head. My point was that these reforms came about because the courts, specifically theAhem.
Warren Court, forced the police to institute better procedures with judicial oversight. Scalia now wants to take that oversight away.
There is a wee irony here, as well.
Scalia, as a so-called originalist, has repeatedly criticized reliance on social science research to justify court rulings. Yet not only does he use such research to justify his ruling here, he does so sloppily and inaccurately.
Law Librarian Blog has the gory details.
When Milne died in 1956, he did not bequeath ownership of the copyright to his family but to a trust that later became known as the Pooh Properties Trust.
If you want to know more, go here.