Following my apologia about my inability to keep up with the wealth of great posts in the blawgosphere, today brings a cornucopia of stuff worthy of everyone’s attention.  Since I’ve sworn off doing more than 27 posts per day in the interest of time and sanity, here’s a survey of the posts since I would be remiss not to post something about them.

The Disparity of the Language of Crime

From Mike at Crime & Federalism, a post about a new book comparing the disparate treatment given in the interpretation of consent to search versus invocation of right to counsel.  A person agrees to let a cop “just look in the trunk” is interpreted as consent to have his car torn apart piece by piece, while a person who says “I think I should probably speak to an attorney first,” is not interpreted as unequivocal invocation of right to counsel. 

Fundamentally Correct Constitutional Interpretation

Orin Kerr at Volokh is really more sarcastic than I am.  He really is.  Referring to Richard Posner’s effort to critique Scalia’s “method and result” in his decision in Heller, Orin smacks back with:

Posner is ridiculously wrong, of course: The fundamental truth of constitutional law is that Justices who agree with me are divining the true Constitution, while the rest are political hacks twisting the document to suit their policy preferences. Thus, my side is always principled.

He is a hoot.  He’s also right, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.

Does National Pride Trump a 7 Year Old?

Alleen Barber at Viewsday will break your heart with this poignant description of China’s decision to hide a lovely 7 year old who won a singing contest under the covers and use a “prettier” girl in her place.  The reflection on China’s need to present itself as perfect provides the most telling proof that China, despite the face it presents in the Olympics, has yet to understand the meaning of the word “ugly”.

Bartow’s Definition of an Internet Bully

This is a two-post combo from Dave Hoffman at Co-Op, but follows up the comments to Paul Horwitz at PrawfsBlawg.  It seems that Ann Bartow, that perpetual ray of sunshine in the lawprof blawgosphere, has challenged the rest of the lawprofs to naked co-ed mud wrestling by arguing that anybody who doesn’t provide advance notice, and get prior approval, of a response to a published post (by a female?) lawprof is a “bully”. 

No one can figure out what she’s talking about, though the lawprofs say this very nicely, to avoid annoying Ann. Of course, it doesn’t help, and Bartow throws a hissy fit.  Now I understand completely, since I’ve read Ann’s views on sexual politics.  She just mirrors Orin’s argument on Posner’s rationalization.  Except nobody told her it was a joke.  I might have sent Bartow advance warning of this post and asked her permission to use it, but I’d rather just be a bully.  Grrr. 

Do I Have Your Permission to Destroy Your Stuff?

And again from Mike at C&F (who is just posting one great thing after another), the 8th Circuit decision in U.S. v. Santana-Aguirre, holding that consent to search a trunk somehow incorporates consent to destroy the personal possessions of the person as well.  In this case, it involved destroying two candles.  While adopting the officer’s reasoning for wanting to see whether there was something inside the candles in excruciating detail, there is absolutely no concern for, or rationale behind, the approval of nonconsensual destruction of personal property. 

Who cares how good a reason the officer can create to justify he desire to destroy something?  There was no consent to do so, and the officer’s interest doesn’t extend consent beyond its parameters or give rise to the authority to destroy at will.  This is a fundamental unprincipled decision, but one that you need to know about when they cut the head off your client’s kid’s beloved teddy bear, just to be sure.  Can you say, “No, I do not consent to a search under any circumstances?”