In his opinions on abortion and gay rights, Justice Antonin Scalia has taken an offensively narrow view of the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. But when it comes to the 4th Amendment’s more specific protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Scalia has been a strong voice for individual rights.

That was the case Tuesday. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Scalia came down hard on police in Florida who, without having obtained a warrant, deployed a drug-sniffing dog at a homeowner’s front door.

Acting on an unverified tip that Joelis Jardines was growing marijuana, Miami-Dade police had Franky, a Labrador retriever trained to detect marijuana, sniff around Jardines’ front door. Only after Franky gave them the signal they were looking for did they obtain a warrant. Jardines was charged with trafficking in more than 25 pounds of marijuana. But the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the evidence had to be tossed out because Franky’s olfactory investigation was an illegal search.

In affirming that decision, Scalia said it was well-established Anglo-American law that the protection of the home against unreasonable searches extends to the area “immediately surrounding his house.”

“To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to —well, call the police,” wrote Scalia.

Welcome as Scalia’s decision is, it was too narrow. In deciding whether police have engaged in an unreasonable search, the court has employed two tests. The one cited by Scalia in this case involves whether there has been a trespass on private property. But in 1967, the court adopted a broader definition of an illegal search when it ruled that the 4th Amendment was violated when police affixed a wiretap to the outside of a telephone booth being used by a gambler. What mattered, wrote Justice John Marshall Harlan in that case, was whether the suspect had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, grounding this decision in Jardines’ expectation of privacy would have produced the same result. But it also would have emphasized, at a time of growing anxiety about surveillance by drones and computer programs, that the government doesn’t have to set foot on your physical property to violate your privacy.

— Los Angeles TimesFrom the moment it was conceived, the Defense of Marriage Act was indefensible. The Supreme Court should send it to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.Fortunately, Wednesday’s deliberations seemed headed in that direction, although it’s unclear which legal trash chute the justices will choose. A majority of them expressed skepticism that DOMA passes constitutional muster. No surprise there. Judicial experts have been questioning its validity from the day President Bill Clinton signed it into law Sept. 21, 1996.DOMA defines marriage as between a man and woman and denies legally married same-sex couples the rights and benefits available to other couples married in the same states. Its elimination should please both social liberals and states-rights conservatives.DOMA brought out the worst in Clinton, who caved on principle to shore up his bid for re-election. His Republican opponent, Sen. Bob Dole, had pushed DOMA as a wedge issue after a Hawaii court ruling paved the way toward gay marriage, throwing conservatives into a tizzy. Clinton’s advisers feared the president would lose votes if he stood up to Congress on DOMA, particularly since Republicans had enough votes to override a veto.Clinton reportedly regretted his decision from the moment he put pen to paper. Presidents hardly ever admit to mistakes in office, but when the Supreme Court decided to take up this case, he wrote a column for the Washington Post saying “the law was discriminatory” and he wished he had not signed it.Marriage between men and women doesn’t need defending. The rights of gays and lesbians do. The Supreme Court should put an end to an obviously discriminatory law.

— San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News