294
Stevens, J., concurring in judgment
respondent of liberty or property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
My conclusion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed is reached independently of the question whether petitioners may have violated the Fourth Amendment because their method of conducting the search was arguably unreasonable—an issue not squarely presented and argued by petitioners in this Court. If their conduct had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no reason why such a violation would cease to exist just because they also violated some other constitutional provision. Thus the suggestion in the penultimate paragraph of the Court's opinion—that the possible existence of a second source of constitutional protection provides a sufficient reason for reversal, ante, at 293—is quite unpersuasive. Indeed, if that ground for decision were valid, most of the reasoning in the preceding pages of the Court's opinion would be unnecessary to the decision.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Last modified: October 4, 2007