31. Not Going to the Dogs

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/supreme_court_police_dogs_can_t_sniff_for_drugs_on_your_porch.html

Emily Bazelon wrote on Tuesday about how the Supreme Court decided to not allow police dogs to sniff drugs on one's porch. She started the article introducing two court cases she mentioned in one of her past articles published in the fall. She explained the difference between the two cases - that the Constitution's definition of home was "a place [people] retreat to with special expectations of privacy" concluding that a car cannot be regarded as a home, hence the lost of Harris' case. Further on, Balezon explained in detail about Jardines' case, how he won and later contrasted it with Harris' issue.

Balezon's purpose for writing this article was to inform about two court issues, and what the Supreme Court decided on a conclusion based on both of these cases. Her article seemed to be directed to those who had been following the case, but since she briefly summarized both of the cases in the first paragraph, it was likely that the article could be understood by anyone who decided to read it. Her tone was mostly conversational, as evident throughout the article when she used the pronouns I and you, but the article was not so clear in her stand regarding the issue. Her diction was not hard to understand, and she was able to support her arguments by alluding to several sources, such as the Amendments, Justice Antonin Scalia, and a 2001 case - all considered credible sources that were valid to support her arguments.