Re: How much is that doggie sniffing my car...

["Casey R. Green" <caseyr@uidaho.edu>]

> >I wonder how the sniffing dogs compare to metal detectors.  From what
> >I understand, both are allowed only in public areas, not on private
> >property.  Both are meant to detect things that I may have concealed
> >without actually rifling through my belongings.  What if the lot in
> >which you park you car required you to drive through some large,
> >electronic drug detector (assuming some technological advancements) on
> >your way in.  How would that be different from passing through a metal
> >detector and how would that be different from the sniffing dogs?
> >
> >Jason Abbott
> >
> One major difference is that metal detectors are used in places where
> safety to the public are major concerns--airports, court houses, etc.
> People who use those facilities sacrifice some privacy for the safety of
> all.  I don't often hear of people being attacked by someone wielding a
> joint, or even a kilo of dope, as their weapon.  While some can still claim
> that there is a public safety issue, it is not the kind of "imminent
> threat" that is caused by a gun on an airplane.
>
> Just like our freedom of speach does not include yelling "FIRE!" in a
> crowded theater.  Imminent threat to public safety.  While hate mongering
> of the Aryan Nations, which arguably creates an atmosphere of hostility
> that can theoretically result in violence, does not in and of itself cause
> an imminent threat.  Therefore, freedom of speach, and protection against
> unreasonable search and seizure.
>
> Robert Hoffmann

    Where do we draw the line?  I believe that the safety of the public should
include keeping people off the roadways who are under the influence of
intoxicating substances.  Drugs are treated the same as alcohol in that
respect.  I am a firm believer in personal freedoms, but these freedoms are
determined by a majority rule.  Everyone cannot be happy at the same time.  Our
society is far too diverse to have a common unanimous outcome.  People under
the influence and behind the wheel pose an imminent threat to me and the safety
of my family.
    These types of searches listed above are designed to be as unobtrusive as
possible, but necessary to maintain a certain perception that something is
being done.  These searches are also productive and have true foundations in
the law, or else they would not be allowed at all.  There are cases that have
shown that officers who have a reasonable suspicion that a person poses a
threat to them or others and that they may be in possession of a weapon, and
that weapon may be concealed on their person, they can do a cursory search to
determine if there is a weapon.  It is not a strip search, but a search to
ensure the safety of the officer.  Look of "Terry v. Ohio" for the case law.
    Crimes will occur regardless of the severity of law enforcement
involvement, what does change is public perception of crime.  Groups like the
aryans love to stir up trouble and spread their messages because it draws
attention to them.  and the more attention they get, the further their cause
can reach.  The more hostile, the better.  This increases the public perception
that something should be done.  The perception for problems outweighs the
actual probability of problems occurring. Thus, a perception is formed that
says the aryans will be a problem...
    Public safety should know no boundaries and based upon probable cause law
enforcement generally has very few boundaries.  I feel safer knowing that the
police are looking out for my family's safety to the best of their abilities.
This feeling is tempered by the realization that if someone truly wanted to
hurt me or my family, the police would be powerless to stop them unless they
had probable cause to believe that it will occur.  Nonetheless, I feel safer
knowing that they are there.

Casey R. Green