Ä [7]  IN*TOUCH CONSTITUTION (1:375/48) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ALT.POLITICS.CONSTITUTION Ä
 Msg  : #3335 [100] - 3332                                                      
 From : John G. Otto                        1:2613/335      Sat 12 Feb 94 00:12 
 To   : All                                                                     
 Subj : Stupid(?) Police Tricks                                                 
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
From: ottojg@freenet.tlh.fl.us (John G. Otto)
Organization: AXE EFF CPSR SOO FIJA NRA GOA ISIL

> In article <DEEB.94Feb10143009@splinter.coe.neu.edu>,
> deeb@splinter.coe.neu.edu (Stephen Humble) wrote:

> About cops searching vehicles and possibly getting permission to do so
> by intimidation,

>> orion1@iastate.edu (Alex O Leu) sez:
>> What difference does it make if they search your car and you have
>> nothing to hide?

> * They set a precedent that can be used to erode further what's
>   left of the Bill of Rights.

> * They waste my time by detaining me during the search.

> * They may damage my posessions while searching and if I try to
>   recover damages, it'll be a lot of trouble for little chance of
>   success.

> Re the famous question "What are you hiding?", my interpretation of
> the BoR is that *nothing* in my posession is subject to search without
> probable cause and usually a valid warrant.  It looks like the
> definition of "hide" is something like "to fail to cooperate with
> every whim of Big Brother's minions".  By that definition, I "hide"
> everything in my posession.

"The Fourth Amendment generally protects against
 unreasonable searches of persons, papers, and houses;
 however, its interpretation is artificial from the outset.
 In constitutional law interpretation is everything, since
 the text is usually sparse and vague.  The Fourth
 Amendment literally requires a warrant for all searches,
 yet we have never required literal compliance.  Once the
 words are not to be taken literally, all interpretations
 are just that - interpretations."
                       --- Richard Neely WV Supreme Court

"We cannot assert on the one hand that citizens have
 certain rights and then on the other hand permit the
 police to violate these rights to secure convictions.
                       --- Richard Neely WV Supreme Court

"Since the Supreme Court has never required the
 exclusionary rule per se but only some meaningful sanction
 against illegal police conduct, the state legislatures are
 free to experiment.  Why haven't they experimented?
 Because any new system [it is expected] will cost money."
                        --- Richard Neely WV Supreme Court