Apple CEO Tim Cook is NOT the hero that you think he is.

Tim Cook has now positioned Apple as the vanguard of personal privacy by opposing a court order seeking their assistance in investigating one of the greatest domestic terror events in this country in the last ten years. “The implications of the government’s demands are chilling…” Oh please Tim, where have you been before now? Could it be this search warrant is being served in your neighborhood, at your place of business, and your concerns for “the security of our customers” are not so benevolent? Might it rather be that any threat to corporate profits must be fought at all cost? Helping prevent the next potential terror attack isn’t sufficient justification for creating the means to unlock one cell phone because there is no way to control what may happen thereafter, Pandora’s Box will be opened, data security Armageddon is upon us.

News bulletin, search warrants are served by law enforcement every day, everywhere, all over the country, on businesses, and yes, even citizens’ homes, all the time. “Knock notice” is the requirement, but if you don’t get to the door in time, out comes the battering ram, and they are coming in. You may be in bed, in the shower, or otherwise indisposed, but none of that matters. You’re “detained” while the search is performed, and you’ll be lucky if they let you get dressed, can’t have the detainee going through a clothes drawer, might destroy evidence, threaten officer safety.

Better yet, if a “confidential reliable informant” has accused you of selling drugs, or possessing anything illegal small enough to be hidden, they can look anywhere for it. Tear off the back of the T.V., break holes in the wall, pull all the drawers out, and leave it like that, whether they find anything or not. Computers are always mentioned as a tool used for criminal activity, so those are gone, and should you have a safe in the house, you better open it or “we’ll just take it down to the station and drill it out.”

Okay, now that’s an invasion of privacy. It just doesn’t go down like that in most of the Silicon Valley. Got to get into Oakland or Richmond to see what’s really going on. But then that’s got nothing to do with Apple and its sacred customers, unless of course one of them decided to shoot to death fourteen people one afternoon. Giving up the personal information of two dead terrorists is too much to ask, it could “…undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”

The reason EVERYONE should be a fan of Supreme Court Justice Scalia.

Justice Scalia will never be remembered as a champion of the little guy, but as a criminal defense attorney he was my best friend. For Scalia the Constitution was not alive, rather it was set in stone. Fortunately, that included the Bill of Rights wherein the protection of citizens accused by their government of a crime are specifically stated. Law enforcement has often found it difficult to live by these rules, often trying to chip away at them in the interest of what they call “public safety.”

Scalia’s opinions in this area consistently harkened back to the concerns of the Founding Fathers, who had lived under the oppression of a colonial government. A staunch advocate for the right to a jury trial, Scalia railed against the notion that judges alone could double a convicted defendant’s sentence by making factual findings that certain “sentencing factors” were presented at trial. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, he wrote for the majority that a jury – not a judge – must find “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.”

His greatest contribution, however, came in the right to confront one’s accuser. In Navarette v. California in a dissent he criticized the majority opinion allowing an anonymous claim to form the probable cause for detaining a motorist. He referred to the court’s opinion as a “freedom-destroying cocktail.”

But it was in Crawford v. Washington that, in this trial lawyer’s opinion, Scalia truly shined. The state court allowed the playing of a tape-recorded statement of an alleged victim of a stabbing to be heard by the jury because, in the judge’s opinion, it was “reliable.” This hearsay evidence denied the accused his right to confrontation, as there had been no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. For Scalia, the Sixth Amendment meant what it clearly said, “… the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witness against him.”

The Crawford decision was a criminal justice game changer. No longer could the one sided answers to leading questions of law enforcement be the only evidence needed. The accuser must appear in court and publicly make his accusations, and thereafter be cross-examined about the truth and accuracy of his statements. Countless false allegations, whether they be motivated by fear, vindictiveness or just plain faulty memory could now be exposed in front of a jury. As a purveyor of justice motivated by an honest search for the truth, I will be forever grateful to Justice Scalia for this principled decision.

Not too long ago I had the opportunity to hear Justice Scalia speak in person. On that occasion, I recall nothing in his remarks on the state of jurisprudence in the United States that I agreed with. It didn’t matter; I had to shake his hand anyway. Whether a man is right or wrong in the moment is rarely the measure of him, it is rather his character for integrity that matters.  In that regard, Scalia had no equal.