Drug-sniffing dogs can be used at traffic stops, high court rules

BE wrote:

> What am I missing?

The concept of probable cause.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> BE wrote:
>
>> What am I missing?
>
> The concept of probable cause.

Oh yea, you're right.

In article >, Michael wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
>>
>> Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...
>
> But if you have nothing to hide, you should not be nervous.
> On the other hand, if you act nervous on purpose, then don't complain
> about being searched.

The mantra of the police state.

In article et>, BE wrote:
> But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have a
> diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your home, and
> that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?

The same reasoning used to make being in an automobile worthy of
suspension of your rights works for the home as well.

"BE" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have
a
> diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
home, and
> that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Just my opinion, but a closed vehicle constitutes a person's "effects."
We wouldn't tolerate the police patting down or using a drug sniffing
dog on people who are walking on the street, so why do we tolerate it
when they are in a vehicle?

In article >, Paul wrote:

> The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>
> Just my opinion, but a closed vehicle constitutes a person's "effects."
> We wouldn't tolerate the police patting down or using a drug sniffing
> dog on people who are walking on the street, so why do we tolerate it
> when they are in a vehicle?

The right to walk around without being searched and being required to
show papers is slowly being erroded away as well. It's somewhat behind
the that of being in an automobile but it is headed that way. Our right
to walk into various buildings and use various forms of public and private
transportation without being searched is already gone. The home is somewhat
behind everything else, but it's going to happen. It's a matter
of time. It's about conditioning.

In article >,
"Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote:

> "BE" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have
> a
> > diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
> home, and
> > that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>
> The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>
> Just my opinion, but a closed vehicle constitutes a person's "effects."
> We wouldn't tolerate the police patting down or using a drug sniffing
> dog on people who are walking on the street, so why do we tolerate it
> when they are in a vehicle?

You have just elucidated the problem with the view that holds that
driving is just a privilege.

If driving is just a privilege, then we (the people) can be said to have
given up our rights in order to obtain the privilege, can't we?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Paul wrote:
> "BE" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have
>
> a
>
>>diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
>
> home, and
>
>>that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>
>
> The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>
> Just my opinion, but a closed vehicle constitutes a person's "effects."
> We wouldn't tolerate the police patting down or using a drug sniffing
> dog on people who are walking on the street, so why do we tolerate it
> when they are in a vehicle?
>
>
>
Actually we already do tolerate. Terry frisk.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Arif Khokar wrote:

> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
> Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...

Four More Years! Four More Years! Four More Years! Four More Years!

In article >, Alan Baker wrote:

> You have just elucidated the problem with the view that holds that
> driving is just a privilege.
>
> If driving is just a privilege, then we (the people) can be said to have
> given up our rights in order to obtain the privilege, can't we?

And the logic that anything that didn't exist at the time the
constitution was written is just a 'privilege' can be used in areas of
our other rights. For instance, usenet could be considered a 'privilege'
just as driving is. Thusly the government could come in and tell us we
can't write what we please using that arguement. We give up our right to
free speech for the privilege of using usenet. Sound good? Of course it
doesn't.