SNIFFING AROUND  FOR PRIVACY:  The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that police cannot detain motorists stopped for a routine traffic violation any longer than it takes to complete their resolution of the traffic violation (running a driver’s license/registration/insurance check and writing a ticket).  The case, Rodriguez v. United States, involved a pull-over for erratic driving.  After running routine checks associated with the traffic violation, the officer asked Rodriguez to consent to a police drug dog sniff of his vehicle.  When Rodriguez declined, the officer radioed for backup and the dog sniffed Rodriguez’s vehicle anyway.  The dog discovered methamphetamines.

The Court, 6-3– with an interesting and broad ideological coalition of Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan– ruled that the dog’s use was “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment absent “reasonable suspicion” that Rodriguez had drugs.   Whether the officer in Rodriguez’s case actually had a reasonable suspicion that Rodriguez possessed drugs is a question upon which the Court did not pass, remanding the case back to the lower courts to determine.  So Rodriguez may yet lose.

The Rodriguez decision allows drug-sniffing dogs to be used during routine traffic stops– a practice upheld in the 2005 case, Illinois v. Caballes–– but the dogs cannot extend the time necessary to complete investigation of the traffic offense.  What’s even more intriguing is that the Rodriguez decision seems to imply that a dog sniff constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, which contradicts the Court’s 1983 decision in United States v. Place.  The Place Court concluded that a dog sniff doesn’t invade one’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” in the same way that opening up one’s luggage would.

I’ve always thought Place was wrongly decided and hope the Court is walking back its position that dog sniffs aren’t “searches.”  If use of a GPS tracker or thermal imager are “searches” under the Fourth Amendment– and the Supreme Court has said they are– then a dog sniff should be, too.  They are all mechanisms by which the government can “see” or learn things it otherwise could not.  If I put materials in an opaque container– purse; car trunk; suitcase–I have a reasonable expectation of privacy therein, and if the government wants to peek inside, it’s a search.  The Court’s recent cell phone case, Riley v. California, is a similar positive step toward enhancing privacy under the Fourth Amendment, particularly outside the home.

IMAGE: The World Divided Into Seven Regions, Each with a Population of One Billion.

I DUNNO, THE MOVIE WAS AWFULLY GOOD, BUT KIND OF A ONE-OFF: Never Give Up, Never Surrender: ‘Galaxy Quest’ TV Show Is in the Works.

FLASHBACK: Driving The 1989 Nissan 300ZX. I think Mickey Kaus still has one of these, though I believe it’s a ’91 or ’92.

IS THIS EVEN A SURPRISE? Apparently, no one at MSNBC pays taxes.

STANDING UP FOR SCIENCE: Bill Gates Defends Meat Amid Environmental Criticism: “Evolution turned us into omnivores,” the tech billionaire says. Do vegetarians believe in evolution?

HOPEY-CHANGEY: New Starter Homes Hit Dead Stop.

SO ACCORDING TO JONATHAN CHAIT, THE EVIL REPUBLICANS AREN’T JUST “CLIMATE DENIERS,” THEY’RE NOW AGAINST HAVING ANY SORT OF CLIMATE AT ALL!!!!

“Anti-climate?” Give me a break. But, see, it used to be “global warming,” which was awkward because the globe wasn’t getting warmer. So it became “climate change.” But that’s awkward and not very scary. So it’s been shortened to “climate,” but that produced such absurdities as “climate deniers” and, now, “anti-climate.” And why such misleading and non-descriptive terms? Because science!

UPDATE: Chait puts me in my place!

But then, a brilliant suggestion:

An idea so crazy, it just might work!

MORE: Tim Cavanaugh gets the last word:

I’m going to stop now, lest I be accused of trying to turn InstaPundit into a Twitchy-clone.

ANOTHER BLUE-CITY POLICE STATE: ‘SCANDALOUS’: Baltimore Police Spying On Cellphones And Hiding It. Chicago, NYC, Baltimore. Why do Democrats hate privacy and civil rights?

OUCH: “We’ll observe Earth Day when the EPA observes the law.” So, never then?

THERE’S A CULTURE OF SECRECY BECAUSE THERE’S A LOT TO HIDE: Insiders Detail Culture of Secrecy at California’s Obamacare Exchange.

TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 713.

MEGAN MCARDLE: Twitter’s Harassment Problem Is Just Business.

First, let’s get the obligatory disclaimers out of the way. I think online harassment is terrible, and I have been a victim of it. In fact, I’m so old that I was a victim of vicious online harassment before there was Twitter. I have often been told I should die and heard fervent wishes that I should live while a loved one is killed in my place. I’ve also heard many of the quasi-threatening missives favored by less courageous trolls, which begin “I know where you live” and proceed to lengthy meditations on what a pity it would be if someone broke into my house and proceeded to commit the sort of violent mayhem that the writer is not quite brave enough to commit themselves. I won’t even begin to catalog the unfavorable comments on my appearance and general desirability, because you probably don’t have the rest of the day to read this column.

So I get the problem, I really do. But to talk realistically about solutions, we can’t just talk about Twitter as if it were some sort of collective social institution. We need to talk about it as a company — one that will need to (eventually) make some money if it is going to survive.

People writing about Twitter’s harassment problem — and demanding that Twitter do more to fix it — frequently mention that it is worth billions and has strong revenue growth. But there’s a word you’ll rarely see: profit. And that’s because Twitter hasn’t yet shown one. . . .

The proposed actions would make things much better for established folks with sizable followings. On the other hand, it would erode the appeal for new users who don’t have sizable followings, because a lot of the more famous folks they want to follow and talk to would have blanket-banned them — not because they did something wrong, but because other people who superficially resemble them did. And that, in turn, would probably make them more likely to drop out, not turn into engaged users whose eyeballs can then be sold to advertisers.

Maybe it’s not all that viable a business, long-term.

PUNCH EPA BACK TWICE AS HARD:  The Obama Administration’s EPA has recently discovered, buried in obscure language (section 111(d)) of the Clean Air Act, that it has authority to demand drastic reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing power plants.  The net effect of its demands would be the shut-down of many of the nation’s coal-fired electricity plants, which are by far the most common and cost-effective means of generating our nation’s growing electricity needs.  The Obama Administration’s goal of shutting down coal-fired plants is no secret, and the EPA Administrator has admitted that its proposed rule is not designed to reduce pollution, but in fact to kill America’s coal sector by “investing” in the Administration’s favored “renewable” energy sources, such as its disastrous solar energy “investment” in Solyndra.

As part of EPA’s 111(d) rule–set to be finalized this summer– the EPA is bullying States to completely alter existing plant-to-plug energy regulation, which will not only shut down most of nation’s coal-fired plants, but require dependency on much less reliable forms of electricity generation, including solar, natural gas and nuclear– at a cost of between $41 to 73 billion per year.

Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, the director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority urges States to refuse compliance with EPA’s unreasonable, expensive, and dangerous demands:

While the short-term effects may be painful, the long-term consequences of submitting to this federal power grab are far worse.

For one, compliant states will enter into a “Mother may I?” relationship with the federal government. Not only will the initial SIP require the EPA’s blessing, so will any future modifications. This gives the EPA de facto veto power over any proposed state energy regulations, thus centralizing all energy decisions in Washington.

Compliance also would absolve the federal government of accountability once the disasters of this regulation begin to unfold. The regulation is designed so states will share blame with the EPA when electricity rates skyrocket. If federal regulators want to raise Americans’ electricity bills by thousands of dollars each year, they can do that. State lawmakers would be wise to let them walk that road alone.

The more states that refuse to give in to the EPA’s demands, the more likely it is that the agency will be forced to hold back the most burdensome elements of its Clean Power Plan. This could mean anything from nonenforcement to amending provisions of the regulation to mitigate their impact.

Amen.  States should simply refuse to play ball with the EPA, and force the Obama Administration to own all of the cost increases, reliability decreases (brownouts; blackouts) that their “climate change” agenda will create.  It’s a dangerous game of chicken, admittedly, but sometimes you have to stare a bully in the eye.  Chief Justice John Roberts put it in the Obamacare decision, NFIB v. Sebelius, “The States are separate and independent sovereigns.  Sometimes they have to act like it.”   Refusing to cave into the Obama Administration’s outrageous Clean Air Act demands is a good way to start.

RELATED:  In addition to the possibility of refusing to implement EPA’s 111(d) rule, several States have filed lawsuits (with more expected to come) in an attempt to stop the madness before it can become reality.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has stacked the D.C. Circuit with liberals/progressives (and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid employed the “nuclear option” and abolished the filibuster rule in order to make this happen).  So any legal success will likely have to come from a lawsuit filed outside the D.C. Circuit.

SHE’S INHERITED OBAMA’S MIDAS TOUCH: Thanks, Hillary: Chipotle Sales Plummet. “Less than a week after Hillary Clinton stiffed the servers at a Chipotle, the company admitted they didn’t hit their first quarter numbers. Forbes magazine is concerned that the lackluster performance might indicate a slowdown for the vibrant burrito sector of the American economy.”

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!