A Stitch in Haste

I would consider this a TKO victory for libertarian principles:

The government has conceded that the U.S. Marshals Service violated federal law when a marshal ordered reporters with The Associated Press and the Hattiesburg American to erase their recordings of a speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
...
During an April 7 speech at a high school in Hattiesburg, a deputy federal marshal, Melanie Rube, demanded that AP reporter Denise Grones and Hattiesburg American reporter Antoinette Konz erase recordings of the justice's remarks. The reporters had not been told before the speech that they could not use tape recorders.

When Grones resisted, the marshal took the digital recorder out of her hands. The reporter then showed Rube how to erase the recording.

Rube then reached across Grones and demanded that Konz hand over her tape. Konz surrendered the tape and, after the speech, was able to get it back only after she erased the recording in front of the marshal.

Yet another example of law enforcement, not knowing what the law actually is, opting for the aggressive, rights-violating course of action and then kicking the issue upstairs to judges who must then try to undo any damage to individual liberties after the fact (maybe we need a new term like "react-ivist judges").

This egregious trampling of First Amendment rights (which, it should be noted, had nothing to do with Justice Scalia himself, who apologized to the audience for the Marshals' misconduct) comes on the heels of similar incidents about which I have previously blogged here and here. Watch a typical episode of "Cops" and you're likely to see an attempt at a Fourth or Fifth Amendment violation at some point.

This phenomenon has to stop. If a law enforcement official is not reasonably sure that he has probable cause to make an arrest, seize property, quell speech, etc., then he should not proceed without guidance from those who are sure (e.g., a superior officer, or District Attorney), and he should be severely disciplined when he proceeds improperly. (Keep in mind that this is not an onerous burden on the government -- to show that there is a "probability of a probability" as opposed to a mere apathetic hunch.)

The Marshals' admission of impropriety was based only on statutory law and not constitutional principles -- that part of litigation is still pending, especially the request for a permanent injunction forever barring the U.S. Marshals from repeating this disgrace.

Let's hope the courts send an unequivocal signal to law enforcement to stay within the bounds of their authority.

UPDATE: Both the Associated Press and the Hattiesburg American have dropped their litigation in light of the U.S. Marshals Service's acknowledgement of culpability and its agreement to pay attorney fees and nominal damages.