Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't find myself in agreement with Sotamayor on much, but this is an exception.LE already has far to much latitude to declare "probable cause" and tear I to our lives on bogus fishing exploits. They can, and do, cook up all kinds of excuses to invade citizens privacy. Its nothing but a license for warrantless searches. Often, just because a citizens attitude puts them off and butt hurts their badge.
I frequently disagree with her positions, but this time she's absolutely correct to defend the Fourth Amendment.
--------------
I have a real fundamental question, because this line drawing is only here because we've now created a Fourth Amendment entitlement to search for drugs using dogs, whenever anybody's stopped. Because that's what you're proposing. And is that really what the Fourth Amendment should permit?
...we can't keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement. Particularly when this stop is not—is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It's purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.
And think about this; if we eliminate the war on drugs, LE would have much fewer opportunities to abuse their power. A huge number of LE abuse of power is all about drugs.
The war on drugs is a symptom, not the disease. If we eliminate the war on drugs they will just substitute a war on obesity, or war on guns, or whatever.
The problem is that the Fourth Amendment has not been honored by both liberal and conservative justices. The Framers would be rolling over in their graves at the roadside checkpoints and TSA gropings that are accepted today. Kudos to Sotomayor for honoring the 4th Amendment. In time perhaps she will honor the 2nd Amendment, too. Sonia Sotomayor and the Second Amendment - Hit & Run : Reason.com
" It's purely to help the police get more criminals," Isn't that what they are supposed to do?
I guess you would rather the police leave criminals alone.
If you DON'T carrry ilegal drugs the dogs will walk right on by you.
"if you can't do the time, don't commit the crime"
I don't give a damn if a pink unicorn walks by. We're talking about our rights. Searching for anything, at virtually any time, seems to define "unreasonable search and seizure."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
