JUDGES AND THE BOTTOM 10%

I was led this dissent by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit by this article about the FBI spying on a young man.  The dissent was about an opinion that limited the 4th Amendment to people who can afford to have more security around their home:

The very rich will still be able to protect their privacy with
the aid of electric gates, tall fences, security booths, remote
cameras, motion sensors and roving patrols, but the vast
majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit
will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel’s ruling.
Open driveways, unenclosed porches, basement doors left
unlocked, back doors left ajar, yard gates left unlatched,
garage doors that don’t quite close, ladders propped up under
an open window will all be considered invitations for police
to sneak in on the theory that a neighborhood child might, in
which case, the homeowner “would have no grounds to complain.”
Id.

There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but
there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist: No truly poor
people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for
that matter. Judges, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex, are
selected from the class of people who don’t live in trailers or
urban ghettos. The everyday problems of people who live in
poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that’s
not how we and our friends live. Yet poor people are entitled
to privacy, even if they can’t afford all the gadgets of the
wealthy for ensuring it. Whatever else one may say about
Pineda-Moreno, it’s perfectly clear that he did not expect—
and certainly did not consent—to have strangers prowl his
property in the middle of the night and attach electronic tracking
devices to the underside of his car. No one does.