Earlier today, I was perusing the transcript of oral argument in the Supreme Court in the matter of Virginia v. Moore. Mr. Moore’s case was argued by Tom Goldstein, of SCOTUSblog. I’ll let his co-blogger give you the skinny:

If the hearing had been confined to the two core arguments of opposing counsel, the discussion would have been simple. The state of Virginia, backed by the federal government, argued for a starkly simple rule: if police have a reason to believe a crime has been committed — that is, they have probable cause — they may make an arrest, even if that is illegal under state law. And, having made the arrest, they may search for evidence of crime and that will not violate the federal Fourth Amendment. Defense counsel for David Lee Moore argued for a rule of equal simplicity: if the arrest is illegal under state law or otherwise, no search may follow, and any evidence found in a search that occurs anyway is barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Court, in reaction, seemed at times to lean each way, but mostly seemed to be diverted by difficult theoretical complications.

Interesting enough. But that’s not what made my day. This did:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. McCullough, the proposition that you’re arguing, does it apply at the Federal level as well? Suppose — suppose I think that my neighbor next door is growing marijuana and I have probable cause to believe that, all right?
So I go in and search his house; and sure enough, there is marijuana. And I bring it to the police’s attention, and they eventually arrest him. Is that lawful search?
MR. McCULLOUGH: If there is State action –
JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m a State actor, I guess. You know –
(Laughter.)
MR. McCULLOUGH: If you have State actors –
JUSTICE SCALIA: You know, a Supreme Court Justice should not be –
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: — should not be living next door to somebody growing marijuana. It doesn’t seem right.
MR. McCULLOUGH: That’s not a smart neighbor.
(Laughter.)
MR. McCULLOUGH: If you have State action and you enter into someone’s home, then the Constitution affords a heightened level of protection. But –
JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t dance around. Is it– is it rendered an unreasonable search by the fact that I’m not a law enforcement officer at all?
MR. McCULLOUGH: I don’t think the fact of — no. The fact that –
JUSTICE SCALIA: So any Federal employee can go crashing around conducting searches and seizures?
MR. McCULLOUGH: So long –
JUSTICE SCALIA: So long as he has probable cause?
MR. McCULLOUGH: That’s correct.
JUSTICE SCALIA: That’s fantastic.
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Do you really think that?
MR. McCULLOUGH: I think if there is State action, it doesn’t matter that you’re wearing a badge or that you’ve gone through the police academy.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Or that you are an administrative law judge at the, you know, Bureau of Customs? It doesn’t matter?
MR. McCULLOUGH: I think that’s right. That if you have — if the State –
JUSTICE SCALIA: What about a janitor? You’re a janitor, a federally employed janitor.
MR. McCULLOUGH: Your Honor –
JUSTICE SCALIA: His neighbor is growing marijuana, and he’s just as offended as a Supreme Court Justice would be. Can he conduct a search?
MR. McCULLOUGH: I think if he’s doing it on behalf of the State, the answer is yes.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wow.

There’s not much I agree with Justice Scalia on, but “wow” is right.