Judge Musmanno really doesn't like the Supreme Court's "voluntary encounter" caselaw. (An alternative would be to say it's a compelled encounter but is allowed with no cause. But from a civil liberties perspective, isn't that worse?) pacourts.us/assets/opinion… 
As I see it, the problem goes like this. The Justices think the 4th Amendment should let the police walk up to people and ask them questions without cause. You can get there two ways: (a) Either it's not a seizure, or (b) it's a seizure that is allowed without cause.
Which is better, (a) or (b)? The Justices went with (a), which lets them maintain the basic rule that seizures have to be justified. They then needed a test to allow (a) without gutting 4th Amendment protection for clearly compelled stops, like the officer who orders the stop.
It seems plausible to me that the choice they made is the most civil liberties protective answer that also allows the police to walk up to people and talk to them.
Of course, you might say the 4th should not allow the police to walk up to people and talk to them. But once you have a majority of Justices who look at that differently, you then need to figure out how to get there while not gutting the rest of the related 4A protections.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
