Posted by Dave on January 12, 2005 at 19:12:44:
In Reply to: search and seizure - from the courts - posted by jlyle on January 12, 2005 at 15:23:24:
We got into Terry stops in our search and seizure instructional portions of my academy.
Of course, before such above opinions can be relied up[on, andy precendents, meanign published decisions at the appellate or above levels must be "Sherpardized, meaning finding out if any later precendents modify the earlier ones.
However, as you can see form the helpful post, in the govermental jihad against drugs, as the sham excuse, ever flimsy pretexts are being exploited.
I remember a decisions by the Supremes wherein the majority said peopel have a reduced expectation of privacy in a car due to the windows. Ok, take your wife or girlfriend, or both put them in the front seat. Then pull up next to a street corner with some cretins hanging out on it, then have one walk up to the side of her window, almost touchign his dirty nose to her window, and have him stare down at her crotch and lick his lips, and see if you agree with the Supremes that if you expect more privacy then that.
The scam claim; "substantial governmental interest" reminds me of this:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -William Pitt.
I think Brennan's dissenting opinion was as succinctly brilliant.
As to inventory searches being permissable under the sham argument to protect the contents of property-the way around that is if you get arrested and your vehicle impounded, you loudly state that you are waiving all liability of the department for failing to do an inventory search, then tell them any subsequent search would therefore be impermissable and any violation of such would constitute a violation of your Constitutional Civil rights and thus such conduct would be actionable.
Post a Followup